On ke, 2016-03-23 at 18:02 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 05:54:09PM +0200, Mika Kuoppala wrote: > > > > Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > > [ text/plain ] > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 03:00:22PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > > > > > > > > Rename and document the GGTT init functions to give a better > > > > idea of the context where they are called from. > > > > > > > > i915_gem_gtt_init => i915_init_ggtt_hw > > > Seems to me i915_ggtt_init_hw would match existing practices better. > > > > > There is also some gravity towards putting the verb first. In gem > > side atleast. > At least in this case ggtt_init_hw would match ppgtt_init_hw, which > seems like a nice thing. > Right, I have changed the order quite a few times already. If it's i915_init_* (like i915_init_userptr), will be easier to grep. Adding Chris here as we discussed this yesterday. His idea is that logic should be action_feature and object_verb, init_some_thingamagic, vs object_destroy. Whatever we decide on, we should drop a small note at kerneldoc. Regards, Joonas -- Joonas Lahtinen Open Source Technology Center Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
