Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/pm: Unconstify power_domain_str

From: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To: Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org>
Cc: intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/pm: Unconstify power_domain_str
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 20:39:10 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151119183910.GX4437@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPj87rPA7-r6=eX3iXCK1mdqX-G1nCdY5kShb+L_sN0qW6cJOQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 06:26:23PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> On 19 November 2015 at 18:24, Ville Syrjälä
> <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 05:59:10PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> >> +static inline const char *
> >> +intel_display_power_domain_str(enum intel_display_power_domain domain)
> >
> > It's still const. And I assume now we end up duplicating these strings
> > in every object file that calls this. Why don't you just remove the
> > "static" from the original?
> 
> Right, 'unstatic' is what I meant. Dropping const wouldn't have been
> very clever.
> 
> Surely gcc's DCE pass will trivially eliminate this?

Dunno. But I rather dislike having code in headers anyway.

> I put it so it
> could lie next to the enum definition itself, but if you'd prefer,
> I'll happily move the definition to intel_runtime_pm.c (or whatever
> shed colour is deemed appropriate) instead.
> 
> Cheers,
> Daniel

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx