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

[Chad Versace]

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.

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

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.

On 07/02/2013 04:46 AM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-dev mailing list
> mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
>