On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:49:56AM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > The long term goal is to have enable/disable as the higher level > functions and activate/deactivate as the lower level functions, just > like we do for PSR and for the CRTC. Let's start this by renaming the > functions that touch the hardware state and their wrappers. So enable() calls activate() and disable() calls deactivate(). So what's the benefit? What mistakes and confusion are made right now and is the mismatch between low/high worth it? This is your chance to justify the churn and sell us on the new naming scheme, and explain your long term vision in making the driver consistent everywhere. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
