On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 05:51:45PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 06:46:23PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 03:30:27PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > I prefer "expose foo" and "use foo" in the same patch. I'll squash these > > two if you're ok. > > Sure, no problem. There have been a lot of these in the past, so I was > just assuming that was the unspoken way of doing it. I sure don't mind > either way. Hm, I guess I'm not super-consistent with my bikesheds, but generally I prefer this stuff squashed. Exception is patches to add piles of registers to i915_reg.h, imo for those it makes sense to keep them separate. That helps in review since the grunk work of double-checking Bspec is separate from the more behavioural review of the actual code. -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
