[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 07/10] drm/virtio: Drop dummy gamma table support

[Emil Velikov]

On 30 March 2016 at 10:51, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> No need to confuse userspace like this.
>
> Cc: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel at redhat.com>
> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied at redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_display.c | 9 ---------
>  1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_display.c
> index 4854dac87e24..12b72e29678a 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_display.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_display.c
> @@ -38,13 +38,6 @@
>  #define XRES_MAX  8192
>  #define YRES_MAX  8192
>
> -static void virtio_gpu_crtc_gamma_set(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
> -                                     u16 *red, u16 *green, u16 *blue,
> -                                     uint32_t start, uint32_t size)
> -{
> -       /* TODO */
> -}
> -
>  static void
>  virtio_gpu_hide_cursor(struct virtio_gpu_device *vgdev,
>                        struct virtio_gpu_output *output)
> @@ -173,7 +166,6 @@ static int virtio_gpu_page_flip(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
>  static const struct drm_crtc_funcs virtio_gpu_crtc_funcs = {
>         .cursor_set2            = virtio_gpu_crtc_cursor_set,
>         .cursor_move            = virtio_gpu_crtc_cursor_move,
> -       .gamma_set              = virtio_gpu_crtc_gamma_set,
>         .set_config             = drm_atomic_helper_set_config,
>         .destroy                = drm_crtc_cleanup,
>
> @@ -416,7 +408,6 @@ static int vgdev_output_init(struct virtio_gpu_device *vgdev, int index)
>                 return PTR_ERR(plane);
>         drm_crtc_init_with_planes(dev, crtc, plane, NULL,
>                                   &virtio_gpu_crtc_funcs, NULL);
> -       drm_mode_crtc_set_gamma_size(crtc, 256);
>         drm_crtc_helper_add(crtc, &virtio_gpu_crtc_helper_funcs);
>         plane->crtc = crtc;
>
Out of curiosity:

Coccinelle should be able to handle/generate such patches, shouldn't
it ? I believe in the past people used it for similar
refactoring/cleanups, yet not (m)any of them [the cocci files] got
checked in the kernel tree.

Thinking about future drivers derived from outdated sources - do you
think it's a good/bad idea to check/run them along side the existing
ones ?

-Emil