Soliciting DRM feedback on latest DC rework

[Dave Airlie]

On 9 May 2017 at 04:54, Harry Wentland <harry.wentland at amd.com> wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Thanks for taking the time to look at DC.
>
> I had a couple more questions/comments in regard to the patch you posted on
> IRC: http://paste.debian.net/plain/930704
>
> My impression is that this item is the most important next step for us:
>
>>     From a quick glance I think what we want instead is:
>>     - amdgpu_crtc_state and amdgpu_plane_state as following:
>>
>>     struct amdgpu_crtc_state {
>>             struct drm_crtc_state base;
>>             struct dc_stream;
>>     };
>
>
> Unfortunately as sketched here it doesn't quite mesh with what we currently
> have, which is:
>
> struct stream {
>         struct core_stream protected;
>         ...
> }
>
> struct core_stream {
>         struct dc_stream public;
>         ...
> }
>
> struct dc_stream {
>         ...
> }
>

Is there any major reason to keep all those abstractions?

Could you collapse everything into struct dc_stream?

I haven't looked recently but I didn't get the impression there was a
lot of design around what was public/protected, more whatever needed
to be used by someone else was in public.

Dave.