From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?B?VGVyamUgQmVyZ3N0csO2bQ==?= Subject: Re: [PATCHv5,RESEND 2/8] gpu: host1x: Add syncpoint wait and interrupts Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 12:41:49 -0800 Message-ID: <5112C00D.7010507@nvidia.com> References: <1358250244-9678-1-git-send-email-tbergstrom@nvidia.com> <1358250244-9678-3-git-send-email-tbergstrom@nvidia.com> <20130204103032.GB27443@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> <51108A94.3060501@nvidia.com> <20130205084255.GB20437@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> <5112BD26.5060800@nvidia.com> <20130206203854.GA1012@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130206203854.GA1012-RM9K5IK7kjIQXX3q8xo1gnVAuStQJXxyR5q1nwbD4aMs9pC9oP6+/A@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Thierry Reding Cc: Arto Merilainen , "airlied-cv59FeDIM0c@public.gmane.org" , "dri-devel-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org" , "linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org On 06.02.2013 12:38, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 12:29:26PM -0800, Terje Bergstr=C3=B6m wrote: >> This was done purely, because I'm hiding the struct size from the >> caller. If the caller needs to allocate, I need to expose the struct= in >> a header, not just a forward declaration. >=20 > I don't think we need to hide the struct from the caller. This is all > host1x internal. Even if a host1x client uses the struct it makes lit= tle > sense to hide it. They are all part of the same code base so there's = not > much to be gained by hiding the structure definition. I agree, and will change. >> Ok, I'll add the wrapper, and I'll check if passing struct host1x * >> would make sense. In effect that'd render struct host1x_intr mostly >> unused, so how about if we just merge the contents of host1x_intr to= host1x? >=20 > We can probably do that. It might make some sense to keep it in order= to > scope the related fields but struct host1x isn't very large yet, so I > think omitting host1x_intr should be fine. Yes, it's not very large, and it'd remove a lot of casting between host1x and host1x_intr, so I'll just do that. Terje