On 1/9/2019 03:51, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2019-01-09 09:23:53)
I should have been more specific. My concern was on documenting
the changing return values.
The interface isn't documented, there's nothing in the header about the
functions? Where else would it be?
I think Mika's point is that you now have inaccurate comments at the
start of the _get functions:
@@ -4207,7 +4256,7 @@ void intel_runtime_pm_get(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
*
* Returns: True if the wakeref was acquired, or False otherwise.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*/
-bool intel_runtime_pm_get_if_in_use(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
+intel_wakeref_t intel_runtime_pm_get_if_in_use(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
{
The comment says 'returns: true ... or false' but should actually say 'returns: an intel_wakeref_t if the wakeref was acquired or zero otherwise'. With the assumption that zero is guaranteed to be an invalid value for an intel_wakeref_t.
The other _get functions were previously void but also now return a wakeref_t. Hence, they should have their comments updated too.
John.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
