On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 06:26:23PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hey, > > On 19 November 2015 at 18:24, Ville Syrjälä > <ville.syrj...@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
