On 02/12/16 17:42, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > I can understand that (even if I'm not sure it's really an issue, and we > should really clean up the CRTC creation code at some point), but how about > adding a possible_crtcs field to the priv structure then ? I don't really like > having to pass it around through a bunch of functions. It is passed to two functions, I'm not sure if that's a bunch =). I can do as you suggest, but I don't like adding fields to structs for things that we only need once. I think local variables and function parameters are for that. But I agree that the patch would be quite a bit smaller with the field, so... Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
