On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 11:19:26AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 05:36:11PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> > 2014-09-30 5:56 GMT-03:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>:
> > > Double negations just parse harder. Also this allows us to ditch some
> > > init code since clearing to 0 dtrt. Also ditch the assignment in
> > > intel_pm_setup, that's not redundant since we do the assignement now
> > > while setting up interrupts.
> > >
> > > While at it do engage in a bit of OCD and wrap up the few lines of
> > > setup/teardown code into little helper functions: intel_irq_fini for
> > > cleanup and intel_irq_init_hw for hw setup.
> >
> > So the werid thing is that we now have:
> > - intel_irq_init
> > - intel_irq_init_hw
> > - intel_irq_fini
> >
> > But the intel_irq_fini doesn't finish what intel_irq_init started, it
> > finishes what intel_irq_init_hw started. Since the functions you
> > introduced are basically wrappers to drm_irq_{un,}install, my bikeshed
> > would be to call the new functions simply intel_irq_install and
> > intel_irq_uninstall.
>
> I like this idea, so changed the names while merging.
Is it worth the divergence? I think the right pattern for other areas of
the driver is:
init
while :
resume
suspend
fini
That becomes something like
intel_irq_init
i915_gem_init
...
while :
intel_irq_resume
i915_gem_resume (formerly i95_gem_init_hw)
...
i915_gem_suspend
intel_irq_suspend
...
i915_gem_fini
intel_irq_fini
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
