On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 16:05, Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:57:05 +0100, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> > wrote: >> We currently have 3 register for which we must not grab forcewake for: >> FORCEWAKE, FROCEWAKE_MT and ECOBUS. >> - FORCEWAKE is excluded in the NEEDS_FORCE_WAKE macro and accessed >> with _NOTRACE. >> - FORCEWAKE_MT is just accessed with _NOTRACE. >> - ECOBUS is only excluded in the macro. >> >> In fear of an ever-growing list of special cases and to cut down the >> confusion, just access all of them with the _NOTRACE variants. > > Instead you build in future confusion by making us guess wtf is this using > *_NOTRACE. The NOTRACE macro needs a bit of explanation as it now is > more than simply skipping the tracepoints, and why certain registers > must be accessed through the macro. Also add that warning to the > register define.
When I last checked _NOTRACE was only used to avoid the forcewake dance, hence why I didn't add any comment. Would renaming it to _NO_FORCEWAKE make you happy, too? Otherwise I think I'll call it _RAW and smash a bunch of comments all over the place, but imo that's overkill (and especially in such architectural corner-cases comments tend to get stale fast or at least not really reflect reality fully correctly). -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch - +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
