On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 02:25:20PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 23:33:49 +0200 > Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Like with the equivalent change for gen6+ rps state, this helps in > > clarifying the code (and in fixing a few places that have fallen through > > the cracks in the locking review). > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> > > I don't think this patch is necessary, and doesn't belong in the series. > The series was about fixing a locking problem. If you want to submit > this as a separate patch, I'd prefer it. > > If you're really determined to keep it, I'd roll it into the earlier > patches that did the rps renaming.
Well, you've already smashed your r-b onto the equivalent patch for the gen6+ rps code. But the real reason this belongs to this series is that I've used this rename (and the rps one) to actually figure out (with the help of the compiler) what is actually touched where and which parts belong together. 'Cause the current code is a rather decent mess. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Mail: [email protected] Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
