From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> Date: 2017-06-19 16:31:19
Although header is included only once but still having an include guard
is a good practice. To avoid confusion, add SoC prefix to existing
Exynos5433 header include guard.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
---
include/video/exynos5433_decon.h | 6 +++---
include/video/exynos7_decon.h | 5 +++++
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> Date: 2017-06-19 16:31:22
The DECON headers contain only defines for registers. There are no
other drivers using them so this should be put locally to the Exynos DRM
driver. Keeping headers local helps managing the code.
Suggested-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos5433_drm_decon.c | 3 +--
drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos7_drm_decon.c | 2 +-
.../exynos5433_decon.h => drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/regs-decon5433.h | 0
include/video/exynos7_decon.h => drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/regs-decon7.h | 3 +--
4 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
rename include/video/exynos5433_decon.h => drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/regs-decon5433.h (100%)
rename include/video/exynos7_decon.h => drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/regs-decon7.h (99%)
diff --git a/include/video/exynos5433_decon.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/regs-decon5433.hsimilarity index 100%rename from include/video/exynos5433_decon.hrename to drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/regs-decon5433.hdiff --git a/include/video/exynos7_decon.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/regs-decon7.hsimilarity index 99%rename from include/video/exynos7_decon.hrename to drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/regs-decon7.hindex d28829659a17..8fe4c44f12f3 100644--- a/include/video/exynos7_decon.h+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/regs-decon7.h
From: Emil Velikov <hidden> Date: 2017-06-20 09:54:03
On 19 June 2017 at 17:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk
Although header is included only once but still having an include guard
is a good practice. To avoid confusion, add SoC prefix to existing
Exynos5433 header include guard.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
---
include/video/exynos5433_decon.h | 6 +++---
include/video/exynos7_decon.h | 5 +++++
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Drop the _REGS_ part from the guard on each header? The file name/path
does not have it, plus it'll save some WTF moments when
exynos{5433,7}_regs_decon.h comes about.
Regards,
Emil
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> Date: 2017-06-20 10:02:26
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Emil Velikov [off-list ref] wrote:
On 19 June 2017 at 17:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Although header is included only once but still having an include guard
is a good practice. To avoid confusion, add SoC prefix to existing
Exynos5433 header include guard.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
---
include/video/exynos5433_decon.h | 6 +++---
include/video/exynos7_decon.h | 5 +++++
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Drop the _REGS_ part from the guard on each header? The file name/path
does not have it, plus it'll save some WTF moments when
exynos{5433,7}_regs_decon.h comes about.
So maybe it makes sense to reorder these patches and use the guard
name matching final file name?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
From: Emil Velikov <hidden> Date: 2017-06-20 10:57:15
On 20 June 2017 at 11:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski [off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Emil Velikov [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On 19 June 2017 at 17:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Although header is included only once but still having an include guard
is a good practice. To avoid confusion, add SoC prefix to existing
Exynos5433 header include guard.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
---
include/video/exynos5433_decon.h | 6 +++---
include/video/exynos7_decon.h | 5 +++++
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Drop the _REGS_ part from the guard on each header? The file name/path
does not have it, plus it'll save some WTF moments when
exynos{5433,7}_regs_decon.h comes about.
So maybe it makes sense to reorder these patches and use the guard
name matching final file name?
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> Date: 2017-06-20 11:09:38
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Emil Velikov [off-list ref] wrote:
On 20 June 2017 at 11:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Emil Velikov [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On 19 June 2017 at 17:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Although header is included only once but still having an include guard
is a good practice. To avoid confusion, add SoC prefix to existing
Exynos5433 header include guard.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
---
include/video/exynos5433_decon.h | 6 +++---
include/video/exynos7_decon.h | 5 +++++
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Drop the _REGS_ part from the guard on each header? The file name/path
does not have it, plus it'll save some WTF moments when
exynos{5433,7}_regs_decon.h comes about.
So maybe it makes sense to reorder these patches and use the guard
name matching final file name?
That sounds better, IMHO.
OK then, I'll re-order the patches and use matching name
(EXYNOS_REGS_DECON{5433,7}_H).
Best regards,
Krzysztof