On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 05:09:49PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > 2013/8/30 <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>: > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com> > > > > Passing the appropriate crtc to intel_update_watermarks() should help > > in avoiding needless work in the future. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com> > > I like the fact that now we're passing the CRTC, but <bikeshed> my > only worry is that now some functions overwrite the "crtc" we pass as > argument, so this might be confusing and maybe lead to bugs in the > future: perhaps the argument could be called unused_crtc or > ignored_crtc, then we'd keep the "crtc" variables they already have > </bikeshed>. But it's just a bikeshed, so with or without changes: > Reviewed-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zan...@intel.com>.
Right. It could be a bit confusing. I'll change it. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
