On Fri, 11 May 2012 11:00:12 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 03:39:32PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > Sneaky way to get rid of the warning you never liked... I won't forget
> > this.
>
> I concur that killing that warnings is sneaky ;-) Can't we just keep them
> - the ring-
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 03:39:32PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Thu, 10 May 2012 22:21:50 +0100
> Chris Wilson wrote:
>
> > In many places we wish to iterate over the rings associated with the
> > GPU, so refactor them to use a common macro.
> >
> > Along the way, there are a few code removal
On Thu, 10 May 2012 15:39:32 -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> I'm not opposed to this change, but it would have probably been better
> to not remove the BUG_ONs.
I actually removed them because in order to satisfy them we have to
initialise rings we never use (and have another patch so that we only
i
On Thu, 10 May 2012 22:21:50 +0100
Chris Wilson wrote:
> In many places we wish to iterate over the rings associated with the
> GPU, so refactor them to use a common macro.
>
> Along the way, there are a few code removals that should be side-effect
> free and some rearrangement which should only
In many places we wish to iterate over the rings associated with the
GPU, so refactor them to use a common macro.
Along the way, there are a few code removals that should be side-effect
free and some rearrangement which should only have a cosmetic impact,
such as error-state.
Signed-off-by: Chris
In many places we wish to iterate over the rings associated with the
GPU, so refactor them to use a common macro.
Along the way, there are a few code removals that should be side-effect
free and some rearrangement which should only have a cosmetic impact,
such as error-state.
Signed-off-by: Chris
