[Freedreno] [PATCH RFC v1 00/52] drm/crtc: Rename struct drm_crtc::dev to drm_dev

[Sean Paul]

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 10:52 AM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2023, Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > while I debugged an issue in the imx-lcdc driver I was constantly
> > irritated about struct drm_device pointer variables being named "dev"
> > because with that name I usually expect a struct device pointer.
> >
> > I think there is a big benefit when these are all renamed to "drm_dev".
> > I have no strong preference here though, so "drmdev" or "drm" are fine
> > for me, too. Let the bikesheding begin!
> >
> > Some statistics:
> >
> > $ git grep -ohE 'struct drm_device *\* *[^ (),;]*' v6.5-rc1 | sort | uniq -c | sort -n
> >       1 struct drm_device *adev_to_drm
> >       1 struct drm_device *drm_
> >       1 struct drm_device          *drm_dev
> >       1 struct drm_device        *drm_dev
> >       1 struct drm_device *pdev
> >       1 struct drm_device *rdev
> >       1 struct drm_device *vdev
> >       2 struct drm_device *dcss_drv_dev_to_drm
> >       2 struct drm_device **ddev
> >       2 struct drm_device *drm_dev_alloc
> >       2 struct drm_device *mock
> >       2 struct drm_device *p_ddev
> >       5 struct drm_device *device
> >       9 struct drm_device * dev
> >      25 struct drm_device *d
> >      95 struct drm_device *
> >     216 struct drm_device *ddev
> >     234 struct drm_device *drm_dev
> >     611 struct drm_device *drm
> >    4190 struct drm_device *dev
> >
> > This series starts with renaming struct drm_crtc::dev to drm_dev. If
> > it's not only me and others like the result of this effort it should be
> > followed up by adapting the other structs and the individual usages in
> > the different drivers.
>
> I think this is an unnecessary change. In drm, a dev is usually a drm
> device, i.e. struct drm_device *. As shown by the numbers above.
>

I'd really prefer this patch (series or single) is not accepted. This
will cause problems for everyone cherry-picking patches to a
downstream kernel (LTS or distro tree). I usually wouldn't expect
sympathy here, but the questionable benefit does not outweigh the cost
IM[biased]O.

Sean

> If folks insist on following through with this anyway, I'm firmly in the
> camp the name should be "drm" and nothing else.
>
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
>
> --
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center