[PATCH 00/17] drm: rename various struct members "dev" -> "drm"

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Hello,

On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:04:26PM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> Am 13.07.23 um 10:23 schrieb Uwe Kleine-König:
> > after most feedback for my series "drm/crtc: Rename struct drm_crtc::dev
> > to drm_dev"[1] was positive in principle, here comes a new series. I
> > didn't call it v2 as it is different enough to stand on its own.
> 
> To me, it didn't seel as if the discussion was over yet.

Up to when I started preparing this series my impression was that there
was a general acceptance that ->dev is bad and the hot topics were more
about details like "should this be a single patch" and "What is the best
name instead of dev?". For the first this new series is me implmenting
what was recommended and for the latter it's what I think is what most
people favoured.

And I didn't send this series to suppress discussion about the idea of
using a consistent name != "dev".

> In these patches, I find it fairly irritating that the code is now full of
> 
>  dev = crtc->drm;
>  dev = plane->drm;
>  dev = fb->drm;
> 
> and so on. Having these differences in naming is even worse than keeping the
> current field name 'dev'.

If that helps you: I plan to tackle these in a followup. I agree that's
ugly, but fixing these in the same series is too much and if we agree
that

	dev = crtc->dev;

is ugly, there is then an intermediate state that either used

	drm = crtc->dev;

or

	dev = crtc->drm;

to finaly reach

	drm = crtc->drm;

If you see a better way, please let me know. I don't see any.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20230713/d5002ea4/attachment.sig>