On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 11:38:03AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 11:57:09AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 09:38:20AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > If a driver wants to more precisely control its initialisation and in > > > particular, defer registering its interfaces with userspace until after > > > everything is setup, it also needs to defer registering the connectors. > > > As some devices need more work during registration, add a callback so > > > that drivers can do additional work if required for a connector. > > > > > > Correspondingly, we also require an unregister callback. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> > > > Cc: dri-de...@lists.freedesktop.org > > > > tbh I'd call these hooks simply register/unregister. There shouldn't be > > any need for ordering every with interface registration/unregistartion, > > assuming drivers don't fumble things. > > Ah, calling it late_register had the dual purpose of avoiding the > 'register' keyword. :| > > For consistency with resume's naming scheme, it should be register_late. > Maybe register_userspace for greater verbage? Though I like the > shorthand that we have register as meaning expose the internal object to > third parties, including userspace.
register_aux and unregister_aux, shorthand for auxiliary interfaces? Slight confusion with dp aux, but hey if that tricks folks into putting the dp aux register call in here, even better ;-) Agreed that register_userspace is both doubly the same and not quite the right thing (since it's also about internal pulication within the kernel). -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
