On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:27:26 +0100, Chris Wilson
<chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Quoting Sagar Arun Kamble (2017-11-14 18:19:01)
On 11/14/2017 5:53 PM, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:48:11 +0100, Sagar Arun Kamble
> <sagar.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> -static void i915_guc_irq_handler(unsigned long data)
>> +static void intel_guc_irq_handler(unsigned long data)
>
> and verbose "guc_submission_handler()" ?
>
Yes. Should we rename irq_tasklet to submission_tasklet?
then we can s/intel_lrc_irq_handler/execlists_submission_tasklet and
s/i915_guc_irq_handler/guc_submission_tasklet.
Again trying to maintain the nomenclature consistency for Execlists and
GuC.
Ok. Do that as a separate (initial) step.
Hmm. By "tasklet" I usually think of "tasklet_struct". Then
"guc_submission_tasklet" suggests that this is another kind
or customized "tasklet" struct. So maybe use full name:
s/i915_guc_irq_handler/guc_submission_tasklet_func ?
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
