On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 12:35:14 +0200 Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 01:08:58 -0800 > James Park <james.park@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I'm not completely sure what you're saying, but doesn't drm_base_types.h > > (now drm_basic_types.h) make things robust to header order? The patch is in > > another email. You can also see it here: > > https://github.com/jpark37/linux/commit/0cc8ae750bfd9eab7e31c7de6aa84f24682f4f18 > > If that is robust (I don't know if it is, I haven't checked), then why > do you have #ifdef DRM_FOURCC_STANDALONE in it at all? > > Like Simon said: > > On Mon, 07 Dec 2020 10:02:36 +0000 > Simon Ser <contact@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > In my compositors I'd like to globally define DRM_FOURCC_STANDALONE > > (to make sure I don't miss any #define) but I still may include drm.h > > in the same files as well. > > If any project #defines it globally, then what good does checking for > it do? Why not assume that everyone will always want what > DRM_FOURCC_STANDALONE would bring? Sorry! Now I got it. DRM_FOURCC_STANDALONE is a promise that the user is not relying on drm_foucc.h to pull in drm.h. Nothing else. That's fine. But then, the code in the header should be literally #ifndef DRM_FOURCC_STANDALONE #include "drm.h" #endif without an #else branch. Thanks, pq
Attachment:
pgpHZiN67KZpv.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
