> > Sorry, I did not have time to review this but AFAIU this is more of an RFC > now as it does not work with any drivers yet so you'll follow up with more > patches anyway. >
Thanks for taking another look at this. You're right, this should have been an RFC. > > I was wondering if anything wants to read the microcode. If not we could > just ignore the writes and not store the data and just log when something > tried to read. (Or just do nothing for it as uniplemented register > accesses are already logged.) Or are you aware something that needs the > read registers? > I haven't run into anything that reads the microcode. I ended up removing all of this. > > So far we handled these differences within the same function with if on > model. The differences added by this series does not seem large enough to > not fit in an if to keep the single functions but if we go with separate > functions instead then maybe the existing ifs should also be removed and > split into the model specific functions with the common one named > ati_common_reg_* then? The current series only converts new registers so > I'd either use ifs with the single handler function or convert everything > to stay consistent. > After building on this I have to agree with you. It turned out to be much easier to deal with keeping the differences local to a single register handler for now. I'm abandoning this series for a simpler approach that just implements the CP engine (bus mastering) for the r100 end-to-end for the Linux radeon driver (UMS). Sending that series shortly.
