On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 04:33:16PM -0500, Harry Wentland wrote:
> On 2017-01-25 12:59 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 03:49:32PM -0800, Dhinakaran Pandiyan wrote:
> >> +struct drm_private_state_funcs {
> >
> > I also wonder whether we shouldn't give this a drm_atomic_ prefix ...
>
> I think leaving the atomic prefix out is more consistent with the other
> atomic state objects (drm_crtc_state, etc). drm_xyz_state seems to apply
> atomic.
>
> I don't have a strong preference either way, though.
Yeah, makes sense ... I suggested the atomic prefix since it's (at least
right now) only used for atomic updates. But just calling them
drm_private_{state,obj} makes sense too.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
