On 24/03/16 07:40, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
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.
Reasonable enough, as long as we can tell what's a feature and what's an
object. A totally RPN scheme would be even clearer, since we would then
treat features as objects (and actions are verbs), yielding:
i915_userptr_init()
i915_engine_setup()
i915_object_destroy()
and the like. That would require:
i915_gem_init_global_gtt => i915_gem_ggtt_init
i915_gem_gtt_init => i915_ggtt_hw_init
i915_global_gtt_cleanup => i915_ggtt_hw_cleanup
and
i915_pggtt_init()
i915_pggtt_hw_init()
and perhaps
i915_context_allocate()
i915_hw_ctx_init()
i915_hw_ctx_pin_and_map()
i915_context_free()
What do people think counts as "features" in Chris' scheme?
Whatever we decide on, we should drop a small note at kerneldoc.
Regards, Joonas
And perhaps we should have a list of preferred verbs with sensible
meaning, e.g. "allocate" or "create", "init" or "setup", "free" or
"release" or "destroy", etc?
.Dave.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
