[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <630a6654-0305-f3a8-e062-f13a0074d35a@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2022 21:50:56 +0200
From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>, Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/msm: Make .remove and .shutdown HW shutdown
consistent
On 7/24/22 20:47, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Dmitry,
[...]
>> Now there is no point in having this as a separate function. Could you
>
> The only reason why I kept this was to avoid duplicating the same comment
> in two places. I thought that an inline function would be better than that.
>
>> please inline it?
>>
Or do you mean inline it as dropping the wrapper helper and just call to
drm_atomic_helper_shutdown() in both callbacks ? I'm OK with that but as
mentioned then we should probably have to duplicate the comment.
Since is marked as inline anyways, the resulting code should be the same.
--
Best regards,
Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat
Powered by blists - more mailing lists