Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Use intel_ types more consistently for color management code

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 09:31:55PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 04:54:01PM -0800, Matt Roper wrote: > > Try to be more consistent about intel_* types rather than drm_* types > > for lower-level driver functions. While we're at it, let's also be more > > consistent with

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Use intel_ types more consistently for color management code

On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 04:54:01PM -0800, Matt Roper wrote: > Try to be more consistent about intel_* types rather than drm_* types > for lower-level driver functions. While we're at it, let's also be more > consistent with state variable naming (half of the platforms use the > name 'state'

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Use intel_ types more consistently for color management code

Try to be more consistent about intel_* types rather than drm_* types for lower-level driver functions. While we're at it, let's also be more consistent with state variable naming (half of the platforms use the name 'state' whereas the other half used 'crtc_state'). Signed-off-by: Matt Roper