On Mon, 29 Apr 2019, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Quoting Jani Nikula (2019-04-29 13:29:37)
>> Commit 696173b064c6 ("drm/i915: extract intel_pm.h from intel_drv.h")
>> missed the declarations in i915_drv.h.
>
> Fwiw, I want to pull these along with gt powermanagement and rps into
> gt/intel_gt_pm.c and a few friends.
>
> Doesn't make much difference for this patch; just planned obsolescence.
I'm fine either way, via this patch or directly.
In general I like how it's easier to look at the new headers and wonder
why on earth some functions are in the files they are, and try to come
up with better division into files.
---
I'm also trying to probe feedback on some style guidelines I might like
to enforce in the future:
1) A file and the non-static functions in it should have the same
prefix, i.e. intel_foo.c has functions prefixed intel_foo_*.
2) No file should have platform specific non-static functions, i.e. all
the non-static functions should be intel_foo_* and this should
internally split to platform_foo_* instead of leaving the if ladders
or function pointer initializations to the callers.
So, thoughts on naming the functions intel_gt_pm_* upon moving them?
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
