Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 1/4] drm/i915/guc: symbolic names for GuC submission preferences

2016-08-02 Thread Dave Gordon
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

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 1/4] drm/i915/guc: symbolic names for GuC submission preferences

2016-08-02 Thread Jani Nikula
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 >=

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 1/4] drm/i915/guc: symbolic names for GuC submission preferences

2016-08-01 Thread Dave Gordon
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

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 1/4] drm/i915/guc: symbolic names for GuC submission preferences

2016-08-01 Thread Jani Nikula
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

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 1/4] drm/i915/guc: symbolic names for GuC submission preferences

2016-07-22 Thread Dave Gordon
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