Re: R200 minor cleanups

[Oliver M. <z3r...@gm...>]

My thoughts are, we should unify the really common stuff... but I don't think
it's possible to unify r200_tex.c and r300_tex.c. The hardware is different, and
the file would end up with an #ifdef on every 3rd line; it doesn't make sense
here.

Just for really common code it does.

I don't know what is going to happen with TTM. Maybe we should hack the r300
driver for TTM (and someone else can do R200 and R128 (radeon) if they like) or
maybe we should start a new DRI driver completely from scratch, with TTM and
good state handling in mind from the beginning. Then we just take the code we
need from R300 and merge it into the new DRI driver.

Regarding indenting, I indented the driver with the Linux kernel style because
that is what matched most (but not all) of the code. The indenting was a little
inconsistent. If you like, fell free indent the R200 or R128 (radeon) code, too.

I guess for TTM we'll have to wait and see what happens...


On 5/14/07, Jerome Glisse <j.g...@gm...> wrote:
> On 5/14/07, Christoph Brill <eg...@gm...> wrote:
> > Am Montag, den 14.05.2007, 22:53 +0200 schrieb Roland Scheidegger:
> > > Christoph Brill wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > find attached some minor cleanups I did while comparing r200 and r300
> > > > code. Most of them are indention and cosmetical changes. Only real
> > > > changes are that I replaced som
> > > >
> > > > if (0)
> > > >
> > > > with
> > > >
> > > > if (R200_DEBUG & DEBUG_TEXTURE)
> > > >
> > > > It generally reduces the diff between r200 and r300. That's it.
> > > >
> > > > Review and commit please,
> > > >   Christoph Brill
> > >
> > >
> > > Hmm, personally I'm not too happy with kernel-style indentation (and
> > > worse, some parts of the driver but not others converted to it). But
> > > maybe that's just me. If you're truely going to unify the drivers, there
> > > is obviously no way around that (though you could just convert r300 to
> > > use style of radeon/r200...) but if the files are still separate anyway
> > > I don't see much point.
> > > Other opinions?
> > >
> > > Roland
> >
> > I don't really have an opinion on that. The only thing I dislike in the
> > r200 code is that it uses spaces for indents. But that's only my
> > opinion.
> >
> > We can choose whatever indention you like.
> >
> > Note: I'm not 100% sure if merging r300 and r200 code is usefull or even
> > possible. I generally think there is a high amount of redundancy that
> > could be unified. But I need to check that against radeon first before I
> > really continue to do so.
> >
> > I'd rather say to keep my patches out of git for now until a decision
> > for indention was made.
> >
>
> If you want to reunify some more function i think you should stick
> to radeon indentation as you won't likely rewrite most of it, so better
> follow its code guideline. That said i have the feeling that if we
> ever want to have ttm on radeon (and i believe we do :)) we will
> some times need to rewrite most of it at least i did have the
> impression that most others dev thought that.
>
> best,
> Jerome Glisse
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
> Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
> control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
> http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Dri-devel mailing list
> Dri...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
>