> -----Original Message----- > From: Lespiau, Damien > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:26 PM > To: Daniel Vetter > Cc: Mateo Lozano, Oscar; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/50] drm/i915: > s/intel_ring_buffer/intel_engine > > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 03:28:27PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 01:08:36PM +0100, oscar.mateo@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > From: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > In the upcoming patches, we plan to break the correlation between > > > engines (a.k.a. rings) and ringbuffers, so it makes sense to > > > refactor the code and make the change obvious. > > > > > > No functional changes. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > If we rename stuff I'd vote for something close to Bspec language, > > like CS. So maybe intel_cs_engine? Bikeshedding much, are we? :) If we want to get closer to bspecish, intel_engine_cs would be better. > Also, can we have such patches (and the like of "drm/i915: > for_each_ring") pushed early when everyone is happy with them, they cause > constant rebasing pain. I second that motion! _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
