On 10/08/15 16:00, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 03:17:26PM +0300, Martin Peres wrote:
+static int
+intel_detect_pipelined_oacontrol(struct intel_screen *screen,
+ struct detect_pipelined_register *detect)
{
if (screen->devinfo->gen < 6 || screen->devinfo->gen >= 8)
- return false;
+ return 0;
/* Set "Select Context ID" to a particular address (which is likely not a
* context), but leave all counting disabled. This should be harmless.
*/
- return intel_detect_pipelined_register(screen,
- OACONTROL,
- 0x31337000,
- true);
+ detect->reg = OACONTROL;
+ detect->expected_value = 0x31337000;
+ detect->result = HW_HAS_PIPELINED_OACONTROL;
+ detect->reset = true;
+ return 1;
+}
+
+static void
+intel_detect_pipelined_register_access(struct intel_screen *screen)
+{
+ struct detect_pipelined_register regs[2], *r =regs;
+
+ /* Combine the multiple register access validation into a single
+ * round trip through the kernel + GPU.
+ */
+ r += intel_detect_pipelined_so(screen, r);
+ r += intel_detect_pipelined_oacontrol(screen, r);
Not a fan of this construct. How about changing the return types of
the detect functions to int?.
Do you mean
if (intel_detect_pipelined_so(screen, r))
r++;
or
int index = 0;
index += intel_detect_pipelined_so(screen, &r[index]);
?
-Chris
Sorry, I meant:
static BOOL intel_detect_pipelined_so() --> static INT
intel_detect_pipelined_so()
Booleans are supposed to be booleans, not integers. The fact that true
and false map to 0 and 1 are an implementation detail (which should
never ever be different for plenty of reasons, but we are talking about
semantics here).
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
