From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx>
Hi
Daniel reccently complained that we keep adding stuff at the bottom of the file
and keep conflicting with each other. So on the first patch I completely
reorganize the file so that it lists functions per-file. With this, different
patches will mostly only conflict when adding new functions to the same file.
Besides this, patches 2-5 try to remove a few lines from intel_drv.h. All the
other functions seem to be either necessary or not trivial to remove.
These patches were written against Friday's tree, and got a simple conflict
today. They get bit-rot very quickly and will conflict with everybody else's
patches touching the same file. If we don't really want this, please speak :)
Also, feel free to suggest more changes on top of these, and flamewar about the
"extern" keywords.
Cheers,
Paulo
Paulo Zanoni (5):
drm/i915: reorganize intel_drv.h
drm/i915: make intel_pipe_has_type static
drm/i915: make intel_crtc_load_lut static
drm/i915: make intel_crtc_fb_gamma_{set,get} static
drm/i915: make hsw_{disable,restore}_lcpll static
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 214 ++++++++----------
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 409 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fb.c | 21 ++
3 files changed, 326 insertions(+), 318 deletions(-)
--
1.8.3.1
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
