On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:25:56AM +0100, Jerome Glisse wrote: > I would merge patch 1 & 2 into a single patch, I've split this up to make patch-reading easier. And it's fully bisectable.
> ... also i think you > include radeon_asic.h at top of radeon.h so everyfile would also > include radeon_asic.h that would be simplier than adding include > to file and reduce the likelyhood to forget doing so in the future. > (you might need to add forward declaration like struct radeon; at > top of radeon_asic.h no biggy thought). I disagree. It's not quite there yet, but when all the asic specific stuff is gathered in radeon_asic.h (like I've done for r100 in my last patch), radeon_asic.h is the private header for asic stuff. And radeon.h is the public interface for radeon_asic. Then adding #include "radeon_asic.h" in random places would serve as a warning sign that there's likely a layering violation ahead. After all, generic code should not muck around in the asic private stuff. Unconditionally including radeon_asic.h therefore runs counter to the bigger idea behind my patches. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Mail: dan...@ffwll.ch Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
