[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 01/39] drm/i915: add display sub-struct to drm_i915_private

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 11:07:46AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Aug 2022, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2022, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi at intel.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 06:07:12PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>>>In another long-overdue cleanup, add a display sub-struct to
>>>>drm_i915_private, and start moving display related members there. Start
>>>>with display funcs that need a rename anyway to not collide with the new
>>>>display member.
>>>>
>>>>Add a new header under display/ for defining struct intel_display.
>>>>
>>>>Rename struct drm_i915_display_funcs to intel_display_funcs while at it.
>
>[...]
>
>>>>+struct intel_display_funcs {
>>>
>>> in the same line as comment above. Maybe we could give this struct a
>>> better name? Because it's already inside a intel_display.funcs.crtc
>>>
>>> display->funcs.crtc->get_pipe_config()
>>> display->funcs.crtc->get_initial_plane_nfig()
>>> display->funcs.crtc->enable()
>>> display->funcs.crtc->disable()
>>> display->funcs.crtc->commit_modeset_enables()
>>>
>>> and then call this `struct intel_crtc_funcs`.
>>>
>>> This can be done later as this commit itself is basically moving things
>>> with the same name inside a substruct.
>>
>> I guess my question is, are the functions inside "crtc enough" to be
>> called intel_crtc_funcs? Though intel_display_funcs is really too
>> generic too.
>>
>> Maybe I'll just go with crtc.
>
>Mmh, except we already have a bunch of struct drm_crtc_funcs with
><platform>_crtc_funcs in intel_crtc.c. Too confusing.
>
>struct intel_random_collection_of_display_funcs. :p
>
>The easy choice *for now* would be to stick with the struct
>intel_display_funcs and live with the display->funcs.display tautology.

Acked-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi at intel.com>


thanks
Lucas De Marchi

>
>BR,
>Jani.
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center