On 01/08/16 19:57, Dave Gordon wrote:
On 01/08/16 14:54, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016, Dave Gordon wrote:
The existing code that accesses the "enable_guc_submission"
parameter uses explicit numerical values for the various
possibilities, including in one case relying on boolean 0/1
m
On Mon, 01 Aug 2016, Dave Gordon wrote:
> On 01/08/16 14:54, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016, Dave Gordon wrote:
>>> - } else if (i915.enable_guc_submission > 1) {
>>> + } else if (i915.enable_guc_submission >= GUC_SUBMISSION_MANDATORY) {
>>
>> I like the patches in general, but now
On 01/08/16 14:54, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016, Dave Gordon wrote:
The existing code that accesses the "enable_guc_submission"
parameter uses explicit numerical values for the various
possibilities, including in one case relying on boolean 0/1
mapping to specific values (which could
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016, Dave Gordon wrote:
> The existing code that accesses the "enable_guc_submission"
> parameter uses explicit numerical values for the various
> possibilities, including in one case relying on boolean 0/1
> mapping to specific values (which could be confusing for
> maintainers).
The existing code that accesses the "enable_guc_submission"
parameter uses explicit numerical values for the various
possibilities, including in one case relying on boolean 0/1
mapping to specific values (which could be confusing for
maintainers).
So this patch just provides and uses names for the