On 07/02/2013 12:34 PM, Chad Versace wrote:
I second Marek's concern. Having intel_context defined differently
in two locations will cause nightmares in editors. It's possible,
but with much pain, to workaround that nightmare in Eclipse, but I'd
rather avoid it.
Seems reasonable to me.
I dislike brw_context, because it doesn't match all the other naming
conventions in the driver. Symbols are prefixed with one of
- intel, for generation-independent code
- genN, for generation-specific code, perhaps forward-compatible
- brw, for gen4-specific code, perhaps forward-compatible
Well...intel_* used to be gen2+, while brw_* was gen4+.
Now that we've forked the shared code, intel_* and brw_* are both
essentially generation-independent.
If we're going to make the effort to rename everything, we might as well
name things consistently. I don't feel that brw is consistent with the
majority of the codebase. As Eric said, it really does feel archaic.
I vote for gen_context or i965_context, but I won't cry if you choose
brw_context. Just please please please don't choose intel_context.
One other option is to rename intel_context in the i915 directory, but
there isn't a terribly clear name there. i915_context is bad, since
810/830/915/945 are meaningful differences. gen3_context is bad since
it's for gen2 too. So I'm inclined to just leave it as intel_context.
--Ken
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
