Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/5] drm/i915: merge gen checks to use range
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 03:28:00PM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 03:12:18PM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 12:47:28PM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 12:19:13PM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 11:10:10AM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 11:31:25AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 01/11/2018 08:35, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > > > > > Instead of using several IS_GEN(), it's possible to pass the
> > > > > > > range as argument. By code inspection these were the ranges deemed
> > > > > > > necessary for spatch:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > @@
> > > > > > > expression e;
> > > > > > > @@
> > > > > > > (
> > > > > > > - IS_GEN(e, 3) || IS_GEN(e, 4)
> > > > > > > + IS_GEN(e, 3, 4)
> > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > - IS_GEN(e, 5) || IS_GEN(e, 6)
> > > > > > > + IS_GEN(e, 5, 6)
> > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > - IS_GEN(e, 6) || IS_GEN(e, 7)
> > > > > > > + IS_GEN(e, 6, 7)
> > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > - IS_GEN(e, 7) || IS_GEN(e, 8)
> > > > > > > + IS_GEN(e, 7, 8)
> > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > - IS_GEN(e, 8) || IS_GEN(e, 9)
> > > > > > > + IS_GEN(e, 8, 9)
> > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > - IS_GEN(e, 10) || IS_GEN(e, 9)
> > > > > > > + IS_GEN(e, 9, 10)
> > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > - IS_GEN(e, 9) || IS_GEN(e, 10)
> > > > > > > + IS_GEN(e, 9, 10)
> > > > > > > )
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c| 6 +++---
> > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_crt.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_engine_cs.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fifo_underrun.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pipe_crc.c | 4 ++--
> > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c| 6 +++---
> > > > > > > 10 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > > > > > index 28d95f9d0b0e..f2fbc016bd7f 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > > > > > @@ -2030,7 +2030,7 @@ static int i915_swizzle_info(struct
> > > > > > > seq_file *m, void *data)
> > > > > > > seq_printf(m, "bit6 swizzle for Y-tiling = %s\n",
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > swizzle_string(dev_priv->mm.bit_6_swizzle_y));
> > > > > > > - if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 3) || IS_GEN(dev_priv, 4)) {
> > > > > > > + if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 3, 4)) {
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can see value in it but think it would read better with
> > > > > > IS_GEN_RANGE.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, it seems there's a rough consensus of s/IS_GEN/IS_GEN_RANGE/ an
> > > > > then
> > > > > bring the patches that make sense here. There was a recent patch from
> > > > > Rodrigo
> > > > > doing that. I'll include it in next version.
> > > >
> > > > I liked the double args idea but after reading I believe
> > > > it gets clear IS_GEN_RANGE.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are there any cases of or-ed IS_GEN checks with something
> > > > > > sandwiched in
> > > > > > between then, which the above spatch would miss?
> > > > >
> > > > > By manually inspecting the result of ``git grep -ne "IS_GEN(.*" --
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/``
> > > > > I didn't find any. The only thing I found was a missed case for gen3
> > > > > || gen2
> > > > > that was not covered by the spatch.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How many non-consecutive IS_GEN gen checks are there? To give us
> > > > > > some ideas
> > > > > > if the usual pattern is range, or perhaps checks against a list of
> > > > > > gens also
> > > > > > exists? (Gut feeling says no.)
> > > > >
> > > > > only cases of <=, <, >=, >.
> > > >
> > > > For these cases on patches 4 and 5::
> > > >
> > > > What about converting all < n to <= n-1 and all > n to >= n + 1
> > > > get FORVER back and introduce IS_GEN_UNTIL ?
> > > >
> > > > IS_GEN_UNTIL(dev_priv, e)
> > > > IS_GEN_RANGE(dev_priv, s, FOREVER)
> > > >
> > > > so we can also kill INTEL_GEN.
> > > >
> > > > Another different idea on top of that.
> > > >
> > > > What about removing all "IS_"?
> > > >
> > > > so end result could be something like that:
> > > >
> > > > INTEL_GEN(dev_priv, n)
> > > > DISPLAY_GEN(dev_priv, n)
> > > > INTEL_GEN_RANGE(dev_priv, s, e) #or e = FOREVER
> > > > DISPLAY_GEN_RANGE(dev_priv, s, e) #or e = FOREVER
> > > > INTEL_GEN_UNTIL(dev_priv, e)
> > > > DISPLAY_GEN_UNTIL(dev_priv, e)
> > > >
> > > > (maybe s/INTEL/GT)
> > >
> > > I like it.
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/5] drm/i915: merge gen checks to use range
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 03:12:18PM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 12:47:28PM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 12:19:13PM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 11:10:10AM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 11:31:25AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 01/11/2018 08:35, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > > > > Instead of using several IS_GEN(), it's possible to pass the
> > > > > > range as argument. By code inspection these were the ranges deemed
> > > > > > necessary for spatch:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @@
> > > > > > expression e;
> > > > > > @@
> > > > > > (
> > > > > > - IS_GEN(e, 3) || IS_GEN(e, 4)
> > > > > > + IS_GEN(e, 3, 4)
> > > > > > |
> > > > > > - IS_GEN(e, 5) || IS_GEN(e, 6)
> > > > > > + IS_GEN(e, 5, 6)
> > > > > > |
> > > > > > - IS_GEN(e, 6) || IS_GEN(e, 7)
> > > > > > + IS_GEN(e, 6, 7)
> > > > > > |
> > > > > > - IS_GEN(e, 7) || IS_GEN(e, 8)
> > > > > > + IS_GEN(e, 7, 8)
> > > > > > |
> > > > > > - IS_GEN(e, 8) || IS_GEN(e, 9)
> > > > > > + IS_GEN(e, 8, 9)
> > > > > > |
> > > > > > - IS_GEN(e, 10) || IS_GEN(e, 9)
> > > > > > + IS_GEN(e, 9, 10)
> > > > > > |
> > > > > > - IS_GEN(e, 9) || IS_GEN(e, 10)
> > > > > > + IS_GEN(e, 9, 10)
> > > > > > )
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c| 6 +++---
> > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_crt.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_engine_cs.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fifo_underrun.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pipe_crc.c | 4 ++--
> > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c| 6 +++---
> > > > > > 10 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > > > > index 28d95f9d0b0e..f2fbc016bd7f 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > > > > @@ -2030,7 +2030,7 @@ static int i915_swizzle_info(struct seq_file
> > > > > > *m, void *data)
> > > > > > seq_printf(m, "bit6 swizzle for Y-tiling = %s\n",
> > > > > >swizzle_string(dev_priv->mm.bit_6_swizzle_y));
> > > > > > - if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 3) || IS_GEN(dev_priv, 4)) {
> > > > > > + if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 3, 4)) {
> > > > >
> > > > > I can see value in it but think it would read better with
> > > > > IS_GEN_RANGE.
> > > >
> > > > Ok, it seems there's a rough consensus of s/IS_GEN/IS_GEN_RANGE/ an then
> > > > bring the patches that make sense here. There was a recent patch from
> > > > Rodrigo
> > > > doing that. I'll include it in next version.
> > >
> > > I liked the double args idea but after reading I believe
> > > it gets clear IS_GEN_RANGE.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Are there any cases of or-ed IS_GEN checks with something sandwiched
> > > > > in
> > > > > between then, which the above spatch would miss?
> > > >
> > > > By manually inspecting the result of ``git grep -ne "IS_GEN(.*" --
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/``
> > > > I didn't find any. The only thing I found was a missed case for gen3 ||
> > > > gen2
> > > > that was not covered by the spatch.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > How many non-consecutive IS_GEN gen checks are there? To give us some
> > > > > ideas
> > > > > if the usual pattern is range, or perhaps checks against a list of
> > > > > gens also
> > > > > exists? (Gut feeling says no.)
> > > >
> > > > only cases of <=, <, >=, >.
> > >
> > > For these cases on patches 4 and 5::
> > >
> > > What about converting all < n to <= n-1 and all > n to >= n + 1
> > > get FORVER back and introduce IS_GEN_UNTIL ?
> > >
> > > IS_GEN_UNTIL(dev_priv, e)
> > > IS_GEN_RANGE(dev_priv, s, FOREVER)
> > >
> > > so we can also kill INTEL_GEN.
> > >
> > > Another different idea on top of that.
> > >
> > > What about removing all "IS_"?
> > >
> > > so end result could be something like that:
> > >
> > > INTEL_GEN(dev_priv, n)
> > > DISPLAY_GEN(dev_priv, n)
> > > INTEL_GEN_RANGE(dev_priv, s, e) #or e = FOREVER
> > > DISPLAY_GEN_RANGE(dev_priv, s, e) #or e = FOREVER
> > > INTEL_GEN_UNTIL(dev_priv, e)
> > > DISPLAY_GEN_UNTIL(dev_priv, e)
> > >
> > > (maybe s/INTEL/GT)
> >
> > I like it. I'm just not sure about UNTIL, because I will always have doubts
> > if
> > it's inclusive or not. But I guess we have the same today with RANGE and we
> > just get used to it. By making all of them inclusive, it will be easier.
> >
> > Anyway, my preference is:
> >
> > GT_GEN(dev_priv, n)
> > GT_GEN_RANGE(dev_priv, s, e)
> > and e
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/5] drm/i915: merge gen checks to use range
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 12:47:28PM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 12:19:13PM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 11:10:10AM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 11:31:25AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 01/11/2018 08:35, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > > > Instead of using several IS_GEN(), it's possible to pass the
> > > > > range as argument. By code inspection these were the ranges deemed
> > > > > necessary for spatch:
> > > > >
> > > > > @@
> > > > > expression e;
> > > > > @@
> > > > > (
> > > > > - IS_GEN(e, 3) || IS_GEN(e, 4)
> > > > > + IS_GEN(e, 3, 4)
> > > > > |
> > > > > - IS_GEN(e, 5) || IS_GEN(e, 6)
> > > > > + IS_GEN(e, 5, 6)
> > > > > |
> > > > > - IS_GEN(e, 6) || IS_GEN(e, 7)
> > > > > + IS_GEN(e, 6, 7)
> > > > > |
> > > > > - IS_GEN(e, 7) || IS_GEN(e, 8)
> > > > > + IS_GEN(e, 7, 8)
> > > > > |
> > > > > - IS_GEN(e, 8) || IS_GEN(e, 9)
> > > > > + IS_GEN(e, 8, 9)
> > > > > |
> > > > > - IS_GEN(e, 10) || IS_GEN(e, 9)
> > > > > + IS_GEN(e, 9, 10)
> > > > > |
> > > > > - IS_GEN(e, 9) || IS_GEN(e, 10)
> > > > > + IS_GEN(e, 9, 10)
> > > > > )
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c| 6 +++---
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c | 2 +-
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c | 2 +-
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_crt.c | 2 +-
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c | 2 +-
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 +-
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_engine_cs.c | 2 +-
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fifo_underrun.c | 2 +-
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pipe_crc.c | 4 ++--
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c| 6 +++---
> > > > > 10 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > > > index 28d95f9d0b0e..f2fbc016bd7f 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > > > @@ -2030,7 +2030,7 @@ static int i915_swizzle_info(struct seq_file
> > > > > *m, void *data)
> > > > > seq_printf(m, "bit6 swizzle for Y-tiling = %s\n",
> > > > > swizzle_string(dev_priv->mm.bit_6_swizzle_y));
> > > > > - if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 3) || IS_GEN(dev_priv, 4)) {
> > > > > + if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 3, 4)) {
> > > >
> > > > I can see value in it but think it would read better with IS_GEN_RANGE.
> > >
> > > Ok, it seems there's a rough consensus of s/IS_GEN/IS_GEN_RANGE/ an then
> > > bring the patches that make sense here. There was a recent patch from
> > > Rodrigo
> > > doing that. I'll include it in next version.
> >
> > I liked the double args idea but after reading I believe
> > it gets clear IS_GEN_RANGE.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Are there any cases of or-ed IS_GEN checks with something sandwiched in
> > > > between then, which the above spatch would miss?
> > >
> > > By manually inspecting the result of ``git grep -ne "IS_GEN(.*" --
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/``
> > > I didn't find any. The only thing I found was a missed case for gen3 ||
> > > gen2
> > > that was not covered by the spatch.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > How many non-consecutive IS_GEN gen checks are there? To give us some
> > > > ideas
> > > > if the usual pattern is range, or perhaps checks against a list of gens
> > > > also
> > > > exists? (Gut feeling says no.)
> > >
> > > only cases of <=, <, >=, >.
> >
> > For these cases on patches 4 and 5::
> >
> > What about converting all < n to <= n-1 and all > n to >= n + 1
> > get FORVER back and introduce IS_GEN_UNTIL ?
> >
> > IS_GEN_UNTIL(dev_priv, e)
> > IS_GEN_RANGE(dev_priv, s, FOREVER)
> >
> > so we can also kill INTEL_GEN.
> >
> > Another different idea on top of that.
> >
> > What about removing all "IS_"?
> >
> > so end result could be something like that:
> >
> > INTEL_GEN(dev_priv, n)
> > DISPLAY_GEN(dev_priv, n)
> > INTEL_GEN_RANGE(dev_priv, s, e) #or e = FOREVER
> > DISPLAY_GEN_RANGE(dev_priv, s, e) #or e = FOREVER
> > INTEL_GEN_UNTIL(dev_priv, e)
> > DISPLAY_GEN_UNTIL(dev_priv, e)
> >
> > (maybe s/INTEL/GT)
>
> I like it. I'm just not sure about UNTIL, because I will always have doubts if
> it's inclusive or not. But I guess we have the same today with RANGE and we
> just get used to it. By making all of them inclusive, it will be easier.
>
> Anyway, my preference is:
>
> GT_GEN(dev_priv, n)
> GT_GEN_RANGE(dev_priv, s, e)
> and e can be GEN_FOREVER, aka -1. The macro has enough knowledge to work
> out
one niptik
I prefer FOREVER alone than GEN_FOREVER because macro already has "GEN"
> the mask, e.g. s == 10, e == FOREVER => mask == ~(BIT(s) | (BIT(s) - 1))
>
> And the DISPLAY_GEN* counterparts.
>
> IMO there's no need to have _UNTIL because it can
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/5] drm/i915: merge gen checks to use range
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 12:19:13PM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 11:10:10AM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 11:31:25AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > >
> > > On 01/11/2018 08:35, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > > Instead of using several IS_GEN(), it's possible to pass the
> > > > range as argument. By code inspection these were the ranges deemed
> > > > necessary for spatch:
> > > >
> > > > @@
> > > > expression e;
> > > > @@
> > > > (
> > > > - IS_GEN(e, 3) || IS_GEN(e, 4)
> > > > + IS_GEN(e, 3, 4)
> > > > |
> > > > - IS_GEN(e, 5) || IS_GEN(e, 6)
> > > > + IS_GEN(e, 5, 6)
> > > > |
> > > > - IS_GEN(e, 6) || IS_GEN(e, 7)
> > > > + IS_GEN(e, 6, 7)
> > > > |
> > > > - IS_GEN(e, 7) || IS_GEN(e, 8)
> > > > + IS_GEN(e, 7, 8)
> > > > |
> > > > - IS_GEN(e, 8) || IS_GEN(e, 9)
> > > > + IS_GEN(e, 8, 9)
> > > > |
> > > > - IS_GEN(e, 10) || IS_GEN(e, 9)
> > > > + IS_GEN(e, 9, 10)
> > > > |
> > > > - IS_GEN(e, 9) || IS_GEN(e, 10)
> > > > + IS_GEN(e, 9, 10)
> > > > )
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c| 6 +++---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c | 2 +-
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c | 2 +-
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_crt.c | 2 +-
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c | 2 +-
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 +-
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_engine_cs.c | 2 +-
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fifo_underrun.c | 2 +-
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pipe_crc.c | 4 ++--
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c| 6 +++---
> > > > 10 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > > index 28d95f9d0b0e..f2fbc016bd7f 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > > @@ -2030,7 +2030,7 @@ static int i915_swizzle_info(struct seq_file *m,
> > > > void *data)
> > > > seq_printf(m, "bit6 swizzle for Y-tiling = %s\n",
> > > >swizzle_string(dev_priv->mm.bit_6_swizzle_y));
> > > > - if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 3) || IS_GEN(dev_priv, 4)) {
> > > > + if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 3, 4)) {
> > >
> > > I can see value in it but think it would read better with IS_GEN_RANGE.
> >
> > Ok, it seems there's a rough consensus of s/IS_GEN/IS_GEN_RANGE/ an then
> > bring the patches that make sense here. There was a recent patch from
> > Rodrigo
> > doing that. I'll include it in next version.
>
> I liked the double args idea but after reading I believe
> it gets clear IS_GEN_RANGE.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Are there any cases of or-ed IS_GEN checks with something sandwiched in
> > > between then, which the above spatch would miss?
> >
> > By manually inspecting the result of ``git grep -ne "IS_GEN(.*" --
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/``
> > I didn't find any. The only thing I found was a missed case for gen3 || gen2
> > that was not covered by the spatch.
> >
> > >
> > > How many non-consecutive IS_GEN gen checks are there? To give us some
> > > ideas
> > > if the usual pattern is range, or perhaps checks against a list of gens
> > > also
> > > exists? (Gut feeling says no.)
> >
> > only cases of <=, <, >=, >.
>
> For these cases on patches 4 and 5::
>
> What about converting all < n to <= n-1 and all > n to >= n + 1
> get FORVER back and introduce IS_GEN_UNTIL ?
>
> IS_GEN_UNTIL(dev_priv, e)
> IS_GEN_RANGE(dev_priv, s, FOREVER)
>
> so we can also kill INTEL_GEN.
>
> Another different idea on top of that.
>
> What about removing all "IS_"?
>
> so end result could be something like that:
>
> INTEL_GEN(dev_priv, n)
> DISPLAY_GEN(dev_priv, n)
> INTEL_GEN_RANGE(dev_priv, s, e) #or e = FOREVER
> DISPLAY_GEN_RANGE(dev_priv, s, e) #or e = FOREVER
> INTEL_GEN_UNTIL(dev_priv, e)
> DISPLAY_GEN_UNTIL(dev_priv, e)
>
> (maybe s/INTEL/GT)
I like it. I'm just not sure about UNTIL, because I will always have doubts if
it's inclusive or not. But I guess we have the same today with RANGE and we
just get used to it. By making all of them inclusive, it will be easier.
Anyway, my preference is:
GT_GEN(dev_priv, n)
GT_GEN_RANGE(dev_priv, s, e)
and e can be GEN_FOREVER, aka -1. The macro has enough knowledge to work out
the mask, e.g. s == 10, e == FOREVER => mask == ~(BIT(s) | (BIT(s) - 1))
And the DISPLAY_GEN* counterparts.
IMO there's no need to have _UNTIL because it can also be expressed as
GT_GEN_RANGE(dev_priv, GEN_FOREVER, 10).
This way we can also kill the comparisons INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) == x, so we always
work with the gen_mask field. Which means the compiler can do a single
comparison
(/me hoping it actually generates good code)
There are corner cases though:
What should we do with e.g. IS_GEN9_LP() and friends?
Any conversion like these will create a lot of
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/5] drm/i915: merge gen checks to use range
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 11:10:10AM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 11:31:25AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >
> > On 01/11/2018 08:35, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > Instead of using several IS_GEN(), it's possible to pass the
> > > range as argument. By code inspection these were the ranges deemed
> > > necessary for spatch:
> > >
> > > @@
> > > expression e;
> > > @@
> > > (
> > > - IS_GEN(e, 3) || IS_GEN(e, 4)
> > > + IS_GEN(e, 3, 4)
> > > |
> > > - IS_GEN(e, 5) || IS_GEN(e, 6)
> > > + IS_GEN(e, 5, 6)
> > > |
> > > - IS_GEN(e, 6) || IS_GEN(e, 7)
> > > + IS_GEN(e, 6, 7)
> > > |
> > > - IS_GEN(e, 7) || IS_GEN(e, 8)
> > > + IS_GEN(e, 7, 8)
> > > |
> > > - IS_GEN(e, 8) || IS_GEN(e, 9)
> > > + IS_GEN(e, 8, 9)
> > > |
> > > - IS_GEN(e, 10) || IS_GEN(e, 9)
> > > + IS_GEN(e, 9, 10)
> > > |
> > > - IS_GEN(e, 9) || IS_GEN(e, 10)
> > > + IS_GEN(e, 9, 10)
> > > )
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c| 6 +++---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c | 2 +-
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c | 2 +-
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_crt.c | 2 +-
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c | 2 +-
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 +-
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_engine_cs.c | 2 +-
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fifo_underrun.c | 2 +-
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pipe_crc.c | 4 ++--
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c| 6 +++---
> > > 10 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > index 28d95f9d0b0e..f2fbc016bd7f 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > > @@ -2030,7 +2030,7 @@ static int i915_swizzle_info(struct seq_file *m,
> > > void *data)
> > > seq_printf(m, "bit6 swizzle for Y-tiling = %s\n",
> > > swizzle_string(dev_priv->mm.bit_6_swizzle_y));
> > > - if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 3) || IS_GEN(dev_priv, 4)) {
> > > + if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 3, 4)) {
> >
> > I can see value in it but think it would read better with IS_GEN_RANGE.
>
> Ok, it seems there's a rough consensus of s/IS_GEN/IS_GEN_RANGE/ an then
> bring the patches that make sense here. There was a recent patch from Rodrigo
> doing that. I'll include it in next version.
I liked the double args idea but after reading I believe
it gets clear IS_GEN_RANGE.
>
> >
> > Are there any cases of or-ed IS_GEN checks with something sandwiched in
> > between then, which the above spatch would miss?
>
> By manually inspecting the result of ``git grep -ne "IS_GEN(.*" --
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/``
> I didn't find any. The only thing I found was a missed case for gen3 || gen2
> that was not covered by the spatch.
>
> >
> > How many non-consecutive IS_GEN gen checks are there? To give us some ideas
> > if the usual pattern is range, or perhaps checks against a list of gens also
> > exists? (Gut feeling says no.)
>
> only cases of <=, <, >=, >.
For these cases on patches 4 and 5::
What about converting all < n to <= n-1 and all > n to >= n + 1
get FORVER back and introduce IS_GEN_UNTIL ?
IS_GEN_UNTIL(dev_priv, e)
IS_GEN_RANGE(dev_priv, s, FOREVER)
so we can also kill INTEL_GEN.
Another different idea on top of that.
What about removing all "IS_"?
so end result could be something like that:
INTEL_GEN(dev_priv, n)
DISPLAY_GEN(dev_priv, n)
INTEL_GEN_RANGE(dev_priv, s, e) #or e = FOREVER
DISPLAY_GEN_RANGE(dev_priv, s, e) #or e = FOREVER
INTEL_GEN_UNTIL(dev_priv, e)
DISPLAY_GEN_UNTIL(dev_priv, e)
(maybe s/INTEL/GT)
and group all of these together, because today
they are spreadded apart.
Thanks,
Rodrigo.
>
>
> thanks
> Lucas De Marchi
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Tvrtko
> >
> > > seq_printf(m, "DDC = 0x%08x\n",
> > > I915_READ(DCC));
> > > seq_printf(m, "DDC2 = 0x%08x\n",
> > > @@ -4260,7 +4260,7 @@ i915_cache_sharing_get(void *data, u64 *val)
> > > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data;
> > > u32 snpcr;
> > > - if (!(IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6) || IS_GEN(dev_priv, 7)))
> > > + if (!(IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6, 7)))
> > > return -ENODEV;
> > > intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
> > > @@ -4280,7 +4280,7 @@ i915_cache_sharing_set(void *data, u64 val)
> > > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data;
> > > u32 snpcr;
> > > - if (!(IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6) || IS_GEN(dev_priv, 7)))
> > > + if (!(IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6, 7)))
> > > return -ENODEV;
> > > if (val > 3)
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
> > > index c9f8aa47005a..969691e50c04 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
> > > @@ -1673,7
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/5] drm/i915: merge gen checks to use range
On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 11:31:25AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 01/11/2018 08:35, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > Instead of using several IS_GEN(), it's possible to pass the
> > range as argument. By code inspection these were the ranges deemed
> > necessary for spatch:
> >
> > @@
> > expression e;
> > @@
> > (
> > - IS_GEN(e, 3) || IS_GEN(e, 4)
> > + IS_GEN(e, 3, 4)
> > |
> > - IS_GEN(e, 5) || IS_GEN(e, 6)
> > + IS_GEN(e, 5, 6)
> > |
> > - IS_GEN(e, 6) || IS_GEN(e, 7)
> > + IS_GEN(e, 6, 7)
> > |
> > - IS_GEN(e, 7) || IS_GEN(e, 8)
> > + IS_GEN(e, 7, 8)
> > |
> > - IS_GEN(e, 8) || IS_GEN(e, 9)
> > + IS_GEN(e, 8, 9)
> > |
> > - IS_GEN(e, 10) || IS_GEN(e, 9)
> > + IS_GEN(e, 9, 10)
> > |
> > - IS_GEN(e, 9) || IS_GEN(e, 10)
> > + IS_GEN(e, 9, 10)
> > )
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c| 6 +++---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_crt.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_engine_cs.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fifo_underrun.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pipe_crc.c | 4 ++--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c| 6 +++---
> > 10 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > index 28d95f9d0b0e..f2fbc016bd7f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > @@ -2030,7 +2030,7 @@ static int i915_swizzle_info(struct seq_file *m, void
> > *data)
> > seq_printf(m, "bit6 swizzle for Y-tiling = %s\n",
> >swizzle_string(dev_priv->mm.bit_6_swizzle_y));
> > - if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 3) || IS_GEN(dev_priv, 4)) {
> > + if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 3, 4)) {
>
> I can see value in it but think it would read better with IS_GEN_RANGE.
Ok, it seems there's a rough consensus of s/IS_GEN/IS_GEN_RANGE/ an then
bring the patches that make sense here. There was a recent patch from Rodrigo
doing that. I'll include it in next version.
>
> Are there any cases of or-ed IS_GEN checks with something sandwiched in
> between then, which the above spatch would miss?
By manually inspecting the result of ``git grep -ne "IS_GEN(.*" --
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/``
I didn't find any. The only thing I found was a missed case for gen3 || gen2
that was not covered by the spatch.
>
> How many non-consecutive IS_GEN gen checks are there? To give us some ideas
> if the usual pattern is range, or perhaps checks against a list of gens also
> exists? (Gut feeling says no.)
only cases of <=, <, >=, >.
thanks
Lucas De Marchi
>
> Regards,
>
> Tvrtko
>
> > seq_printf(m, "DDC = 0x%08x\n",
> >I915_READ(DCC));
> > seq_printf(m, "DDC2 = 0x%08x\n",
> > @@ -4260,7 +4260,7 @@ i915_cache_sharing_get(void *data, u64 *val)
> > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data;
> > u32 snpcr;
> > - if (!(IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6) || IS_GEN(dev_priv, 7)))
> > + if (!(IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6, 7)))
> > return -ENODEV;
> > intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
> > @@ -4280,7 +4280,7 @@ i915_cache_sharing_set(void *data, u64 val)
> > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data;
> > u32 snpcr;
> > - if (!(IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6) || IS_GEN(dev_priv, 7)))
> > + if (!(IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6, 7)))
> > return -ENODEV;
> > if (val > 3)
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
> > index c9f8aa47005a..969691e50c04 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
> > @@ -1673,7 +1673,7 @@ static void capture_reg_state(struct i915_gpu_state
> > *error)
> > error->ccid = I915_READ(CCID);
> > /* 3: Feature specific registers */
> > - if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6) || IS_GEN(dev_priv, 7)) {
> > + if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6, 7)) {
> > error->gam_ecochk = I915_READ(GAM_ECOCHK);
> > error->gac_eco = I915_READ(GAC_ECO_BITS);
> > }
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
> > index 92daddf79cb0..baaa7b70ffa0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
> > @@ -3449,7 +3449,7 @@ void i915_perf_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > dev_priv->perf.oa.ops.read = gen8_oa_read;
> > dev_priv->perf.oa.ops.oa_hw_tail_read = gen8_oa_hw_tail_read;
> > - if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 8) || IS_GEN(dev_priv, 9)) {
> > + if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 8, 9)) {
> > dev_priv->perf.oa.ops.is_valid_b_counter_reg =
> > gen7_is_valid_b_counter_addr;
> >
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/5] drm/i915: merge gen checks to use range
On 01/11/2018 08:35, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
Instead of using several IS_GEN(), it's possible to pass the
range as argument. By code inspection these were the ranges deemed
necessary for spatch:
@@
expression e;
@@
(
- IS_GEN(e, 3) || IS_GEN(e, 4)
+ IS_GEN(e, 3, 4)
|
- IS_GEN(e, 5) || IS_GEN(e, 6)
+ IS_GEN(e, 5, 6)
|
- IS_GEN(e, 6) || IS_GEN(e, 7)
+ IS_GEN(e, 6, 7)
|
- IS_GEN(e, 7) || IS_GEN(e, 8)
+ IS_GEN(e, 7, 8)
|
- IS_GEN(e, 8) || IS_GEN(e, 9)
+ IS_GEN(e, 8, 9)
|
- IS_GEN(e, 10) || IS_GEN(e, 9)
+ IS_GEN(e, 9, 10)
|
- IS_GEN(e, 9) || IS_GEN(e, 10)
+ IS_GEN(e, 9, 10)
)
Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c| 6 +++---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_crt.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_engine_cs.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fifo_underrun.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pipe_crc.c | 4 ++--
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c| 6 +++---
10 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
index 28d95f9d0b0e..f2fbc016bd7f 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
@@ -2030,7 +2030,7 @@ static int i915_swizzle_info(struct seq_file *m, void
*data)
seq_printf(m, "bit6 swizzle for Y-tiling = %s\n",
swizzle_string(dev_priv->mm.bit_6_swizzle_y));
- if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 3) || IS_GEN(dev_priv, 4)) {
+ if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 3, 4)) {
I can see value in it but think it would read better with IS_GEN_RANGE.
Are there any cases of or-ed IS_GEN checks with something sandwiched in
between then, which the above spatch would miss?
How many non-consecutive IS_GEN gen checks are there? To give us some
ideas if the usual pattern is range, or perhaps checks against a list of
gens also exists? (Gut feeling says no.)
Regards,
Tvrtko
seq_printf(m, "DDC = 0x%08x\n",
I915_READ(DCC));
seq_printf(m, "DDC2 = 0x%08x\n",
@@ -4260,7 +4260,7 @@ i915_cache_sharing_get(void *data, u64 *val)
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data;
u32 snpcr;
- if (!(IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6) || IS_GEN(dev_priv, 7)))
+ if (!(IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6, 7)))
return -ENODEV;
intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
@@ -4280,7 +4280,7 @@ i915_cache_sharing_set(void *data, u64 val)
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data;
u32 snpcr;
- if (!(IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6) || IS_GEN(dev_priv, 7)))
+ if (!(IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6, 7)))
return -ENODEV;
if (val > 3)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
index c9f8aa47005a..969691e50c04 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
@@ -1673,7 +1673,7 @@ static void capture_reg_state(struct i915_gpu_state
*error)
error->ccid = I915_READ(CCID);
/* 3: Feature specific registers */
- if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6) || IS_GEN(dev_priv, 7)) {
+ if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6, 7)) {
error->gam_ecochk = I915_READ(GAM_ECOCHK);
error->gac_eco = I915_READ(GAC_ECO_BITS);
}
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
index 92daddf79cb0..baaa7b70ffa0 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
@@ -3449,7 +3449,7 @@ void i915_perf_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
dev_priv->perf.oa.ops.read = gen8_oa_read;
dev_priv->perf.oa.ops.oa_hw_tail_read = gen8_oa_hw_tail_read;
- if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 8) || IS_GEN(dev_priv, 9)) {
+ if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 8, 9)) {
dev_priv->perf.oa.ops.is_valid_b_counter_reg =
gen7_is_valid_b_counter_addr;
dev_priv->perf.oa.ops.is_valid_mux_reg =
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_crt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_crt.c
index bf4fd739b68c..1822dccb1914 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_crt.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_crt.c
@@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ intel_crt_mode_valid(struct drm_connector *connector,
* DAC limit supposedly 355 MHz.
*/
max_clock = 27;
- else if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 3) || IS_GEN(dev_priv, 4))
+ else if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 3, 4))
max_clock = 40;
else
max_clock = 35;
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
index 873f37b7b796..a1b046c322d5 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
@@ -783,7 +783,7 @@
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/5] drm/i915: merge gen checks to use range
On Thu, 01 Nov 2018, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > Instead of using several IS_GEN(), it's possible to pass the > range as argument. By code inspection these were the ranges deemed > necessary for spatch: Again, ignoring the naming for now, I do like the idea here. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/5] drm/i915: merge gen checks to use range
Instead of using several IS_GEN(), it's possible to pass the
range as argument. By code inspection these were the ranges deemed
necessary for spatch:
@@
expression e;
@@
(
- IS_GEN(e, 3) || IS_GEN(e, 4)
+ IS_GEN(e, 3, 4)
|
- IS_GEN(e, 5) || IS_GEN(e, 6)
+ IS_GEN(e, 5, 6)
|
- IS_GEN(e, 6) || IS_GEN(e, 7)
+ IS_GEN(e, 6, 7)
|
- IS_GEN(e, 7) || IS_GEN(e, 8)
+ IS_GEN(e, 7, 8)
|
- IS_GEN(e, 8) || IS_GEN(e, 9)
+ IS_GEN(e, 8, 9)
|
- IS_GEN(e, 10) || IS_GEN(e, 9)
+ IS_GEN(e, 9, 10)
|
- IS_GEN(e, 9) || IS_GEN(e, 10)
+ IS_GEN(e, 9, 10)
)
Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c| 6 +++---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_crt.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_engine_cs.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fifo_underrun.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pipe_crc.c | 4 ++--
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c| 6 +++---
10 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
index 28d95f9d0b0e..f2fbc016bd7f 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
@@ -2030,7 +2030,7 @@ static int i915_swizzle_info(struct seq_file *m, void
*data)
seq_printf(m, "bit6 swizzle for Y-tiling = %s\n",
swizzle_string(dev_priv->mm.bit_6_swizzle_y));
- if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 3) || IS_GEN(dev_priv, 4)) {
+ if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 3, 4)) {
seq_printf(m, "DDC = 0x%08x\n",
I915_READ(DCC));
seq_printf(m, "DDC2 = 0x%08x\n",
@@ -4260,7 +4260,7 @@ i915_cache_sharing_get(void *data, u64 *val)
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data;
u32 snpcr;
- if (!(IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6) || IS_GEN(dev_priv, 7)))
+ if (!(IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6, 7)))
return -ENODEV;
intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
@@ -4280,7 +4280,7 @@ i915_cache_sharing_set(void *data, u64 val)
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data;
u32 snpcr;
- if (!(IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6) || IS_GEN(dev_priv, 7)))
+ if (!(IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6, 7)))
return -ENODEV;
if (val > 3)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
index c9f8aa47005a..969691e50c04 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
@@ -1673,7 +1673,7 @@ static void capture_reg_state(struct i915_gpu_state
*error)
error->ccid = I915_READ(CCID);
/* 3: Feature specific registers */
- if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6) || IS_GEN(dev_priv, 7)) {
+ if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 6, 7)) {
error->gam_ecochk = I915_READ(GAM_ECOCHK);
error->gac_eco = I915_READ(GAC_ECO_BITS);
}
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
index 92daddf79cb0..baaa7b70ffa0 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
@@ -3449,7 +3449,7 @@ void i915_perf_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
dev_priv->perf.oa.ops.read = gen8_oa_read;
dev_priv->perf.oa.ops.oa_hw_tail_read = gen8_oa_hw_tail_read;
- if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 8) || IS_GEN(dev_priv, 9)) {
+ if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 8, 9)) {
dev_priv->perf.oa.ops.is_valid_b_counter_reg =
gen7_is_valid_b_counter_addr;
dev_priv->perf.oa.ops.is_valid_mux_reg =
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_crt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_crt.c
index bf4fd739b68c..1822dccb1914 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_crt.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_crt.c
@@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ intel_crt_mode_valid(struct drm_connector *connector,
* DAC limit supposedly 355 MHz.
*/
max_clock = 27;
- else if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 3) || IS_GEN(dev_priv, 4))
+ else if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 3, 4))
max_clock = 40;
else
max_clock = 35;
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
index 873f37b7b796..a1b046c322d5 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
@@ -783,7 +783,7 @@ void intel_device_info_runtime_init(struct
intel_device_info *info)
DRM_INFO("Display disabled (module parameter)\n");
info->num_pipes = 0;
} else if (info->num_pipes > 0 &&
- (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 7) || IS_GEN(dev_priv, 8)) &&
+ (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 7, 8)) &&
HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev_priv)) {
u32 fuse_strap = I915_READ(FUSE_STRAP);
