On 17 November 2015 at 23:58, Dave Airlie <[email protected]> wrote: > On 17 November 2015 at 21:57, Emil Velikov <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 17 November 2015 at 00:23, Dave Airlie <[email protected]> wrote: >>> From: Dave Airlie <[email protected]> >>> >>> Totally untested, cross fingers hope it works. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Dave Airlie <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> hw/xfree86/drivers/modesetting/driver.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++---- >>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/hw/xfree86/drivers/modesetting/driver.c >>> b/hw/xfree86/drivers/modesetting/driver.c >>> index 2ca65fb..49a2925 100644 >>> --- a/hw/xfree86/drivers/modesetting/driver.c >>> +++ b/hw/xfree86/drivers/modesetting/driver.c >>> @@ -454,13 +454,12 @@ Probe(DriverPtr drv, int flags) >>> } >>> >>> for (i = 0; i < numDevSections; i++) { >>> - >>> + int entity_num; >>> dev = xf86FindOptionValue(devSections[i]->options, "kmsdev"); >>> if (probe_hw(dev, NULL)) { >>> - int entity; >>> >>> - entity = xf86ClaimFbSlot(drv, 0, devSections[i], TRUE); >>> - scrn = xf86ConfigFbEntity(scrn, 0, entity, NULL, NULL, NULL, >>> NULL); >>> + entity_num = xf86ClaimFbSlot(drv, 0, devSections[i], TRUE); >>> + scrn = xf86ConfigFbEntity(scrn, 0, entity_num, NULL, NULL, >>> NULL, NULL); >> Changing entity to entity_num does not bring anything here. Split in >> off into separate patch ? > > It just makes the code look the same in all the places that use it, > and I have to move it up a few lines. I don't think it makes sense to > bother doing this separately. > Fwiw I believe that combining cleanup/refactor and functionality patches isn't a good idea. Of course we can get away with it, but it feels somewhat dirty.
But if you find that 'it doesn't make sense' so be it. -Emil _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
