[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/23] i915/display: split and constify vtable (v3)

[Saarinen, Jani]

Hi, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Intel-gfx <intel-gfx-bounces at lists.freedesktop.org> On Behalf Of Dave Airlie
> Sent: torstai 9. syyskuuta 2021 4.53
> To: intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: jani.nikula at linux.intel.com
> Subject: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/23] i915/display: split and constify vtable (v3)
> 
> (v3 just adds some missing ,)
> 
>       Details below, I've taken all the review feedback (thanks Jani).
> I added 3 patches moving to wrappers before refactoring, and one other patch is
> unreviewed (07) but the main comment was wanting the wrappers.
> 
> Jani if you are happy with the final 4 patches can you land this series, I don't think I
> have drm-intel commit rights.
Not right Jani to answer but in my view CI in not healthy at all if looking from: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_20995/index.html? 
See taints in the boot. 

> 
> v1:
> This is orthogonal to my display ptr refactoring and should probably be applied first.
> 
> The display funcs vtable was a bit of mess, lots of intermixing of internal display
> functionality and interfaces to watermarks/irqs.
> 
> It's also considered not great security practice to leave writeable function pointers
> around for exploits to get into.
> 
> This series attempts to address both problems, first there are a few cleanups, then it
> splits the function table into multiple pieces.
> Some of the splits might be bikesheds but I think we should apply first and merge
> things later if there is good reason.
> 
> The second half converts all the vtables to static const structs, I've used macros in
> some of them to make it less messy, the cdclk one is probably the worst one.
> 
> v2:
> Added some patches adding wrappers around things before refactoring them as
> suggested by Jani.
> Fixed up all struct names as suggested by Jani.
> Added s-o-b lines
> Added commit msgs.
> 
> v3:
> added missing , (Jani)
> 
> Dave.
>