On Wed, 16 Dec 2020, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 12:03:37PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Fri, 11 Dec 2020, Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > From: Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > There may be more crtc code that can be pulled out, but this >> > is a good start. >> > >> > RFC: maybe call the new file something different >> >> I checked this is just code movement. I did clean up intel_crtc.h >> locally a bit though. (I'll probably re-send the series with a few fixes >> to pass CI.) >> >> I'm not averse to renaming the file later if needed, I'm more concerned >> about choosing a meaningful bunch of functions to take out and put in >> the new file. >> >> Ville, I saw you had some comments about this - is this making sensible >> progress or making further refactoring harder? > > Just means we have to move 90% of the proposed intel_crtc.c > into i9xx_plane.c again. So the plane bits here are just > pointless churn IMO. Fair enough. I just don't want to stall on this again like we've stalled every time there's been proposals to clean up intel_display.c. And it's always about some things that could be moved to a different file or grouped differently or something. I'm pretty close to a point where I'll take *anything* to chop up the file, and then we'll have better clarity with smaller files when the dust settles. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
