[PATCH] drm/msm/dpu: sort entries in the HW catalog

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 at 10:34, Marijn Suijten
<marijn.suijten at somainline.org> wrote:
>
> On 2023-01-08 23:11:13, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > Different entries into the catalog were added quite randomly. Enforce
> > the sorting order of some kind. It is not alphabetic to prevent the
> > patch from growing uncontrollably.
>
> Why not sort these chronologically based on DPU hardware revision in the
> match table at the end of this file?

If we keep the SoC name as part of the symbolic name, we will end up
in another semi-random order that is a pain to verify. Would you
remember that sm6350 comes between sm6115 and qcm2290? I would not :-(
And changing all names to dpu_6_5_0_lms would make it easy to add but
nearly impossible to follow.

> Regardless, this patch is going to
> make it hard to properly rebase DPU additions; see for example patch 4/8
> and 5/8 in my second round of DSC fixes.

Yes, quite unfortunate. As I wrote, it's already late to apply this patch :-(

>
> At the same time we should find a solution to the wishy-washy reuse of
> structs and defines, which may appear the same initially but become
> mismatched as more features are added (see how I had to split out
> multiple of these in the INTF TE enablement series).

It's a slightly different problem, but yes, I share the pain.

>
> > Thus SDM comes before SC and SM
> > platforms and QCM is kept as the last one. There are no functional
> > changes in this patch.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov at linaro.org>
> > ---
> >
> > Yes, I hate such mass-moves too. However the entries in this file are
> > slowly becoming uncontrollable. Let's enforce some order now (while it's
> > late already, but not _that_ late).
>
> I agree that something should happen, contributing to this file is
> unnecessarily tough.

In the IRC conversation Rob suggested playing with includes, but I
don't see a good way to implement that.


--
With best wishes
Dmitry