On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:38:48AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 02:36:36PM +0000, Damien Lespiau wrote: >> > Signed-off-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> Merged this one here, not really sure what to do with the rest. > > So, apparently, there's some unhappiness with INTEL_INFO, which is > somewhat understandable, it doesn't provide much more convenience than > dev_priv->info. > > I can resend the series getting rid of INTEL_INFO() if the sentiment is > shared. To provide the const safety, we can then declare the info struct > as const in the private structure and cast it as non const at > initialization time (as Ville suggests). I'd be ok with that plan. Like I've said on irc, no opinions really on this matter, as long as we can keep the const safety around - imo that helps a lot with reviewing code. E.g. Chris just spotted that some of Ben's semaphore changes aren't too safe since we can frob semaphores at runtime. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
