Am Mittwoch, den 20.01.2016, 19:01 +0100 schrieb Christian Gmeiner:
Hi Russell
2016-01-19 11:21 GMT+01:00 Russell King - ARM Linux linux@arm.linux.org.uk:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:09:57AM +0100, Christian Gmeiner wrote:
Hi Russell,
2016-01-19 10:18 GMT+01:00 Russell King rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk:
/** For some cores, two varyings are consumed for position, so the* maximum varying count needs to be reduced by one.*/if ((gpu->identity.model == chipModel_GC2000 &&gpu->identity.revision == 0x5108) ||(gpu->identity.model == chipModel_GC880 &&gpu->identity.revision == 0x5106))gpu->identity.varyings_count -= 1;Should we not include the whole list of GPU cores with that special handling? See: https://github.com/Freescale/kernel-module-imx-gpu-viv/blob/master/kernel-mo...
I was debating about that - but I think we need to come up with a better way to do this sort of thing. At the very least, I've been wondering whether a macro such as:
#define etnaviv_model_rev(gpu, mod, rev) \ ((gpu)->identity.model == chipModel_##mod && \ (gpu)->identity.revision == rev))
would help make some of this code more readable.
Yep that makes the code more readable.
This macro seems like a very reasonable simplification.
The other thing I've been wondering is whether a table looked up by GPU model ID and/or revision ID quirks would simplify this. However, the downside with the tabular approach is that it becomes harder to compare what we have against the galcore sources.
The table driven approach could be a little heavy for the number of quirks we have currently. Maybe Lucas has an opinion about that?
I don't think that having a quirk table is useful for the current number of quirks and from what I have seen from the Vivante kernel sources.
Regards, Lucas