[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 09/11] drm: Convert open-coded yes/no strings to yesno()

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 12:12:50PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 11:39 AM Lucas De Marchi
><lucas.demarchi at intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> linux/string_helpers.h provides a helper to return "yes"/"no" strings.
>> Replace the open coded versions with str_yes_no(). The places were

oops, I replaced yesno() here but forgot to do so in the title

>> identified with the following semantic patch:
>>
>>         @@
>>         expression b;
>>         @@
>>
>>         - b ? "yes" : "no"
>>         + str_yes_no(b)
>>
>> Then the includes were added, so we include-what-we-use, and parenthesis
>> adjusted in drivers/gpu/drm/v3d/v3d_debugfs.c. After the conversion we
>> still see the same binary sizes:
>>
>>    text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
>>   51149    3295     212   54656    d580 virtio/virtio-gpu.ko.old
>>   51149    3295     212   54656    d580 virtio/virtio-gpu.ko
>> 1441491   60340     800 1502631  16eda7 radeon/radeon.ko.old
>> 1441491   60340     800 1502631  16eda7 radeon/radeon.ko
>> 6125369  328538   34000 6487907  62ff63 amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.ko.old
>> 6125369  328538   34000 6487907  62ff63 amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.ko
>>  411986   10490    6176  428652   68a6c drm.ko.old
>>  411986   10490    6176  428652   68a6c drm.ko
>>   98129    1636     264  100029   186bd dp/drm_dp_helper.ko.old
>>   98129    1636     264  100029   186bd dp/drm_dp_helper.ko
>> 1973432  109640    2352 2085424  1fd230 nouveau/nouveau.ko.old
>> 1973432  109640    2352 2085424  1fd230 nouveau/nouveau.ko
>
>This probably won't change for modules, but if you compile in the
>linker may try to optimize it. Would be nice to see the old-new for
>`make allyesconfig` or equivalent.

just like it would already do, no? I can try and see what happens, but
my feeling is that we won't have any change.

>
>...
>
>>         seq_printf(m, "\tDP branch device present: %s\n",
>> -                  branch_device ? "yes" : "no");
>> +                  str_yes_no(branch_device));
>
>Can it be now on one line? Same Q for all similar cases in the entire series.

I saw that question in the previous version. I think those are very
subjective is they all go a little bit over 80 chars. Some maintainers
may prefer one way or the other.

Here we are reducing just 3 chars so I assumed that is the preferred
style here.  Also keeping it as is helps with the mass conversion since
it's easily repeatable if another iteration is needed.

thanks
Lucas De Marchi