On 07/16/2013 10:07 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 04:41:13PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
Make the uevent strings part of the user API for people who wish to
write their own listeners.
CC: Chad Versace <chad.versace@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
One thing I've toyed around with a bit is that we should add kerneldoc to
our uapi headers and create a DocBook out of it (maybe as a subsection in
the drm userspace api chapter). I guess the DocBook integration needs an
overall approach, but we should start to add comments to each piece of
userspace api to clearly spec them. See below for what I have in mind ...
Yes, docs please. I don't have the kernel-fu of a kernel-dev, so without
docs I don't know what these events mean and what to expect from them.
- parity_event[0] = "L3_PARITY_ERROR=1";
+ parity_event[0] = I915_L3_PARITY_EVENT"=1";
Small nitpick. I usually find string concatenation more readable like this,
with a space:
parity_event[0] = I915_L3_PARITY_EVENT "=1";
But, that's just my preference, so feel free to ignore me.
+#define I915_L3_PARITY_EVENT "L3_PARITY_ERROR"
+#define I915_ERROR_EVENT "ERROR"
+#define I915_RESET_EVENT "RESET"
Maybe this is a dumb question... since these are uevents, do you think the names
would be improved by given them a "UEVENT" suffix? Like I915_ERROR_UEVENT? Or is
that dumb, because these tokens are intended to serve more purposes than uevents?
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
