Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
In-Reply-To: <20210129181519.69963-1-viniciustinti@gmail.com>
References: <20210129181519.69963-1-viniciustinti@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Remove unreachable code
From:   Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc:     Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Vinicius Tinti <viniciustinti@gmail.com>,
        intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com
To:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
        Vinicius Tinti <viniciustinti@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Jan 2021 20:55:54 +0000
Message-ID: <161195375417.17568.2762721732398065240@build.alporthouse.com>
User-Agent: alot/0.9
Precedence: bulk

Quoting Vinicius Tinti (2021-01-29 18:15:19)
> By enabling -Wunreachable-code-aggressive on Clang the following code
> paths are unreachable.

That code exists as commentary and, especially for sdvo, library
functions that we may need in future.

The ivb-gt1 case => as we now set the gt level for ivb, should we not
enable the optimisation for ivb unaffected by the w/a? Just no one has
taken the time to see if it causes a regression.

For error state, the question remains whether we should revert to
uncompressed data if the compressed stream is larger than the original.
-Chris