Quoting Andi Shyti (2019-12-13 19:41:29)
> Hi Michal,
>
> > > @@ -75,6 +75,8 @@ i915-$(CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS) += i915_pmu.o
> > > # "Graphics Technology" (aka we talk to the gpu)
> > > obj-y += gt/
> > > gt-y += \
> > > + gt/debugfs_gt.o \
> > > + gt/debugfs_pm.o \
> >
> > hm, maybe this should be:
> > gt/intel_gt_debugfs.o
> > and
> > gt/intel_pm_debugfs.o
>
> this was actually the name I wanted to give it originally, but
> meantime I also wanted to have the debugfs files alphabetically
> sorted in sequence, like the selftest_* files (I can imagine in
> the future having more debugfs files).
>
> Maybe intel_debugfs_gt.c/intel_debugfs_pm.c would be a good
> compromise?
I don't mind, your argument that we will partition these files off
under gt-${CONFIG_DEBUGFS} += gt/debugfs_*.o was convincing.
>
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
> > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT */
> >
> > in .c SPDX shall start with //
>
> I agree this is the "official" way of doing it, and I also read
> some discussions about it in this mailing list. But however I do
> it, I know someone won't like it. I checked the style in this
> directory and tried to keep it conform to the "gt way".
Shrug. I don't like the coding style violation, so leave it up to
someone who insists to do treewide changes.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
