[Mesa-dev] [RFC] brw_context + intel_context = <?>

[Marek Olšák]

Hi Kenneth,

please don't use the same name intel_context defined differently in
both drivers. The code indexing of my editor would be confused. It
would break features like jumping to the definition, finding all
usages, and refactoring.

Marek

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Kenneth Graunke <kenneth at whitecape.org> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Now that we've split the "intel" code into i915/i965 variants, it doesn't
> make a whole lot of sense to have separate brw_context and intel_context
> structs; merging them seems obvious.
>
> The question then, is: what should we call the merged structure?
>
> Eric noted that the "brw" name has become rather archaic.  For those that
> don't know, "brw" is short for "Broadwater", which was the codename of the
> original Gen4 G965 GPU.  Most of you probably didn't know that...which is
> kind of his point.  Plus, the driver does a lot more than Broadwater now.
>
> A few suggestions that were thrown around:
> - brw_context (the traditional i965 name)
> - intel_context (perhaps a more obvious name)
> - gen_context
> - i965_context
> - ...or something else?
>
> Although I agree with Eric that the "brw" name is rather obsolete, I don't
> really see us moving away from it any time soon - we'd have to rename 92
> files, and I'm just not okay with that.
>
> Personally, I kind of like "brw_context".  Maybe it's nostalgia or
> sentiment, but I think it gives the driver a bit of character.  "intel"
> seems rather generic, but is more recognizable.  I'd prefer to stick to one
> of those two rather than invent something new.
>
> What do you think?  It's not ultimately that important, but I figure people
> may have opinions and I'd like to decide which way to go before working on
> the patches.
>
> --Ken
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-dev mailing list
> mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev