| Message ID | 20170208020011.15782-1-michel.thierry@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On ti, 2017-02-07 at 18:00 -0800, Michel Thierry wrote: > As that is what they are meant to be. It will prevent any confusion if we > have to add other flags in the future. > > Signed-off-by: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@intel.com> <SNIP> > -#define HANG_ALLOW_BAN 1 > -#define HANG_ALLOW_CAPTURE 2 > +#define HANG_ALLOW_BAN (1<<0) > +#define HANG_ALLOW_CAPTURE (1<<1) Make them BIT(0) and BIT(1), and this is; Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com> Regards, Joonas
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 02:42:03PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > On ti, 2017-02-07 at 18:00 -0800, Michel Thierry wrote: > > As that is what they are meant to be. It will prevent any confusion if we > > have to add other flags in the future. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@intel.com> > > <SNIP> > > > -#define HANG_ALLOW_BAN 1 > > -#define HANG_ALLOW_CAPTURE 2 > > +#define HANG_ALLOW_BAN (1<<0) > > +#define HANG_ALLOW_CAPTURE (1<<1) > > Make them BIT(0) and BIT(1), and this is; This is igt and BIT() is already a hodge-podge of different macros. -Chris
On 08/02/17 04:49, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 02:42:03PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: >> On ti, 2017-02-07 at 18:00 -0800, Michel Thierry wrote: >>> As that is what they are meant to be. It will prevent any confusion if we >>> have to add other flags in the future. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@intel.com> >> >> <SNIP> >> >>> -#define HANG_ALLOW_BAN 1 >>> -#define HANG_ALLOW_CAPTURE 2 >>> +#define HANG_ALLOW_BAN (1<<0) >>> +#define HANG_ALLOW_CAPTURE (1<<1) >> >> Make them BIT(0) and BIT(1), and this is; > > This is igt and BIT() is already a hodge-podge of different macros. I see at least 3 different BIT macros already (Chris added the one we want in lib/intel_device_info.c) I can volunteer to move it to one of the header files, replace all the 1<<x with BIT and rename the ones in igt_draw/intel_audio_dump... thoughts? -Michel
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 10:25:19AM -0800, Michel Thierry wrote: > > > On 08/02/17 04:49, Chris Wilson wrote: > >On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 02:42:03PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > >>On ti, 2017-02-07 at 18:00 -0800, Michel Thierry wrote: > >>>As that is what they are meant to be. It will prevent any confusion if we > >>>have to add other flags in the future. > >>> > >>>Signed-off-by: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@intel.com> > >> > >><SNIP> > >> > >>>-#define HANG_ALLOW_BAN 1 > >>>-#define HANG_ALLOW_CAPTURE 2 > >>>+#define HANG_ALLOW_BAN (1<<0) > >>>+#define HANG_ALLOW_CAPTURE (1<<1) > >> > >>Make them BIT(0) and BIT(1), and this is; > > > >This is igt and BIT() is already a hodge-podge of different macros. > > I see at least 3 different BIT macros already (Chris added the one > we want in lib/intel_device_info.c) > > I can volunteer to move it to one of the header files, replace all > the 1<<x with BIT and rename the ones in > igt_draw/intel_audio_dump... thoughts? BIT(), test_bit, set_bit, clear_bit... If you are willing to write them, please do! Make us feel at home :) -Chris
diff --git a/lib/igt_gt.h b/lib/igt_gt.h index e44b6db1..d83e23a1 100644 --- a/lib/igt_gt.h +++ b/lib/igt_gt.h @@ -45,8 +45,8 @@ igt_hang_t igt_hang_ctx(int fd, int ring, unsigned flags, uint64_t *offset); -#define HANG_ALLOW_BAN 1 -#define HANG_ALLOW_CAPTURE 2 +#define HANG_ALLOW_BAN (1<<0) +#define HANG_ALLOW_CAPTURE (1<<1) igt_hang_t igt_hang_ring(int fd, int ring); void igt_post_hang_ring(int fd, igt_hang_t arg);
As that is what they are meant to be. It will prevent any confusion if we have to add other flags in the future. Signed-off-by: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@intel.com> --- lib/igt_gt.h | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)