[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/4] drm/i915/guc: Update name and prototype of GuC submission related functions

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2017-11-14 19:23:24)
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:27:26 +0100, Chris Wilson  
> <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Quoting Sagar Arun Kamble (2017-11-14 18:19:01)
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11/14/2017 5:53 PM, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:48:11 +0100, Sagar Arun Kamble
> >> > <sagar.a.kamble at intel.com> wrote:
> >> >> -static void i915_guc_irq_handler(unsigned long data)
> >> >> +static void intel_guc_irq_handler(unsigned long data)
> >> >
> >> > and verbose "guc_submission_handler()" ?
> >> >
> >> Yes. Should we rename irq_tasklet to submission_tasklet?
> >> then we can s/intel_lrc_irq_handler/execlists_submission_tasklet and
> >> s/i915_guc_irq_handler/guc_submission_tasklet.
> >> Again trying to maintain the nomenclature consistency for Execlists and  
> >> GuC.
> >
> > Ok. Do that as a separate (initial) step.
> 
> Hmm. By "tasklet" I usually think of "tasklet_struct". Then
> "guc_submission_tasklet" suggests that this is another kind
> or customized "tasklet" struct. So maybe use full name:
> 
> s/i915_guc_irq_handler/guc_submission_tasklet_func ?

Please no. You'll grow to dislike the tautology immensely!

struct tasklet tasklet;

execlists->tasklet = execlists_submission_tasklet;
execlists->tasklet = guc_submission_tasklet;

tasklet_schedule(engine->execlists.tasklet) etc

is clear to me.
-Chris