From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jani Nikula Subject: Re: Supporting fused display configurations v4 Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 10:23:58 +0200 Message-ID: <87k3ecci8x.fsf@intel.com> References: <1389035849-20563-1-git-send-email-damien.lespiau@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C216511D668 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 00:20:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org To: Paulo Zanoni , Damien Lespiau Cc: Intel Graphics Development List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Tue, 07 Jan 2014, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > - You removed INTEL_INFO, but all those IS_SOMETHING and HAS_SOMETHING > macros still accept dev as argument instead of dev_priv. Do we have > plans to change this too? I can remember many places where I had to > add a "dev" variable just because of these macros. Perhaps maybe the > new goal is a series removing the to_i915 macro? I could see a lot of > code getting almost entirely rid of "dev" with these changes. You can get from dev to dev_priv and back easily enough. Replacing dev with dev_priv in function parameters seems like pointless churn to me. If (and that's a big if) we wanted to "standardize" on one or the other, I'd go for struct drm_device *dev. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center