From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758445Ab3BFUmE (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Feb 2013 15:42:04 -0500 Received: from hqemgate04.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.35]:17281 "EHLO hqemgate04.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758201Ab3BFUmB convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Feb 2013 15:42:01 -0500 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqnvupgp05.nvidia.com on Wed, 06 Feb 2013 12:41:55 -0800 Message-ID: <5112C00D.7010507@nvidia.com> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 12:41:49 -0800 From: =?UTF-8?B?VGVyamUgQmVyZ3N0csO2bQ==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thierry Reding CC: Arto Merilainen , "airlied@linux.ie" , "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" , "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCHv5,RESEND 2/8] gpu: host1x: Add syncpoint wait and interrupts 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> In-Reply-To: <20130206203854.GA1012@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06.02.2013 12:38, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 12:29:26PM -0800, Terje Bergström 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. > > 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 little > 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? > > 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