On 06.02.2013 12:38, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 12:29:26PM -0800, Terje Bergström wrote: >> This was done purely, because I'm hiding the struct size from the >> caller. If the caller needs to allocate, I need to expose the struct in >> a header, not just a forward declaration. > > I don't think we need to hide the struct from the caller. This is all > host1x internal. Even if a host1x client uses the struct it makes little > sense to hide it. They are all part of the same code base so there's not > much to be gained by hiding the structure definition. I agree, and will change. >> Ok, I'll add the wrapper, and I'll check if passing struct host1x * >> would make sense. In effect that'd render struct host1x_intr mostly >> unused, so how about if we just merge the contents of host1x_intr to host1x? > > We can probably do that. It might make some sense to keep it in order to > scope the related fields but struct host1x isn't very large yet, so I > think omitting host1x_intr should be fine. Yes, it's not very large, and it'd remove a lot of casting between host1x and host1x_intr, so I'll just do that. Terje _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
