Quoting Jani Nikula (2019-04-29 16:03:33)
> 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.
Agreed on these. GEM side has been moving to this direction slowly.
> So, thoughts on naming the functions intel_gt_pm_* upon moving them?
Sounds reasonable to me.
Regards, Joonas
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
