On 02/12/16 17:56, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Tomi, > > On Friday 02 Dec 2016 17:55:10 Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >> 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'm not too fond of that either, hence my first suggestion :-) > >> 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... > > I won't nack any solution you end up selecting even if I have my preferences. I'll go with the posted v2. I agree it's not perfect, but every other option I've tried also feels bad =). I think the only good solution is to rewrite the init parts, but I don't want to do that for a fix. Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
