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

From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>,
	"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: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 10:21:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87poz5axox.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151119183910.GX4437@intel.com>

On Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 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.

Agreed, particularly for long ones like this. Please just drop the
static.

BR,
Jani.

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx