Sorry about this blunder.
- slot = panfrost_job_get_slot(job);
- slot = slot ? slot : 0;
`slot = slot ? slot : 0` is a no-op. Delete the line.
I think what I meant here was 'slot = (slot >= 0) ? slot : 0;' but for some reason I blundered again. The point of this was ensuring the slot value wouldn't end up wrapping about the maximum unsigned integer value when using it as an array offset, in the off-chance that panfrost_job_get_slot() ever returned a negative value.
In v4 I've instead rewritten this as a sanity check:
WARN_ON(slot < 0);
No, this doesn't make sense. There at most 3 job slots -- 0, 1, and 2.
Although perhaps in the future panfrost_job_get_slot should return an unsigned integer instead?
Sure. Kernel style doesn't seem big on unsigned, if this were mesa it would return unsigned. Returning u8 or u32 seems reasonable at any rate.
As a general note, I'd appreciate breaking out the panfrost_regs.h changes into a separate patch, as they are a logically separate clean up to make room for this patch. Thanks.
Done in v4.
Thanks!
Alyssa