Quoting Yaodong Li (2018-02-01 19:47:53) > > On 01/31/2018 11:38 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Jackie Li (2018-01-19 01:29:28) > >> GuC related exported functions should start with "intel_guc_" > >> prefix and pass intel_guc as the first parameter since its guc > >> related. Current guc_ggtt_offset() failed to follow this code > >> convention. > > But it was not, and still does not operate on the guc. Is that changing? > this problem is that it's guc related and the following patches do need > to access the data from intel_guc. Do you think it's getting better > if I add a sentence like "the future patches will need to access > the intel_guc to verify the offset"? That's the idea. You need to explain _why_ you need a particular change, in some cases like this where it's not clear from the context of the patch, you need to fill in the missing details for the reader. In patch series like this where there is upfront refactoring required, remember the reader is starting at the beginning with no idea of what's coming next, so a bit^Wlot of foreshadowing is required in the story you tell. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
