On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 18:20:18 +0100, Michal Wajdeczko
<michal.wajdec...@intel.com> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 17:56:01 +0100, Michał Winiarski
<michal.winiar...@intel.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 02:45:39PM +0000, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
We moved GuC log related data and code to separate files and
definition but we didn't change functions syntax to follow
object-verb pattern. Let's fix that before we continue with
next round of code refactoring.
v2: rebased
Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdec...@intel.com>
Cc: Michal Winiarski <michal.winiar...@intel.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiar...@intel.com>
One more comment, since I just noticed this while rebasing my guc
patches on
this rename.
What about guc actions?
We now have guc_log_flush_complete, guc_log_flush and guc_log_control
that are
using intel_guc rather than intel_guc_log.
Which is reasonable - because those don't touch guc->log, but it's also
inconsistent (I'm also adding guc_log_flush_irq_enable).
If you want to follow object-verb pattern, you should either rename or
pass
intel_guc_log and do the log_to_guc dance there.
I was planning to rename them in next patch as follows:
guc_log_flush_complete -> guc_send_flush_log_complete
guc_log_flush -> guc_send_flush_log
guc_log_control -> guc_send_control_log
or (to match naming used in intel_guc_ct.c)
guc_log_flush_complete -> guc_action_flush_log_complete
guc_log_flush -> guc_action_flush_log
guc_log_control -> guc_action_control_log
or maybe other ideas ?
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
