Hey! The only changes I need on this is the small fix I mentioned for patch #2, and a nitpick regarding the spellings being used for the functions. I wasn't sure whether or not we should be using analog or analogue (us spelling vs. everyone else) but apparently the answer is to use the US spellings: 13:15 <Lyude> hm, weird question: what nationality's english spellings do we actually prefer for igt functions? like, would it be igt_check_analogue_frame_match() or igt_check_analog_frame_match(), or does no one really care? 13:16 → DottorLeo (~leonardo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) has joined #intel-gfx 13:18 <Lyude> mupuf: ^ ? 13:19 <mupuf> oh dear 13:19 <mupuf> danvet: ^ 13:20 <danvet> I think personally I do us spelling in functions, and something more british in comments 13:20 <dmlloyd> "nondigital" 13:20 <Lyude> hehe 13:20 <Lyude> alright gotcha, thanks! On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 16:26 +0300, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: > I am only sending this for comments at this point, since this will > need > to be reworked according to the changes made on previous series > still > under review. Especially, it will benefit from making the frame save > mechanism common. > _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
