On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:07:04AM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:54:19AM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > We can even (or alternatively) make dpll_info part of intel_shared_dpll.
> >
> > You mean something like?
> >
> > struct intel_shared_dpll {
> > ...
> > - id;
> > - name;
> > - flags;
> > + const struct dpll_info *info;
> > ...
> > };
>
> yep, that.
>
> > That would make sense to me since the info seems to be all read-only
> > data. Oh and then we wouldn't even need the extra 'funcs' pointer.
> > Some extra indirection there but this isn't performance sensitive or
> > anything.
> >
> > Even if it wouldn't make things smaller I'd still like it just for
> > the clarity of having all the read-only data being const.
> >
> > >
> > > Below is the diff to make funcs a pointer on top of previous patch.
> >
> > This one is
> > Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Humn... do you mean the initial patch or the diff below?
The diff.
> If I'm going to
> embed dpll_info inside intel_shared_dpll, this patch would be pointless.
Yeah. But I gave the r-b anyway in case you were going to stop here.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
