Em Qua, 2015-10-21 às 13:34 +0100, Chris Wilson escreveu: > 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? I explained each individual change on its own patch, but I guess I should have put a higher level description here. Will fix this in v2. With just this patch there's really no benefit. The main benefit is patch 12, when we actually have separate enable/disable and activate/deactivate functions. One of the main points is that enable/disable are called once per modeset, while update/activate/deactivate can be called tons of times during normal operation, so moving code to enable() when possible makes sure it is not ran over and over again unnecessarily. > What mistakes and confusion are made right now The confusion right now is that we don't have the real higher level enable/disable that we get on patch 12. > 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. Maybe I should just redirect users to patch 12 on the commit, since this patch does not add any value by itself. I could have squashed this and 12, but I don't like huge patches: they're not easy to review and are a pain to rebase. Anyway, v2 will hopefully have a better commit message. > -Chris > _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
