[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 06/10] drm/i915: Introduce intel_crtc_is_bigjoiner_{slave, master}()

[Nautiyal, Ankit K]

LGTM.

Reviewed-by: Ankit Nautiyal <ankit.k.nautiyal at intel.com>

On 2/7/2022 1:01 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 01:27:54PM -0800, Navare, Manasi wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 08:38:19PM +0200, Ville Syrjala wrote:
>>> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
>>>
>>> Introduce helpers to query whether the crtc is the slave/master
>>> for bigjoiner. This decouples most places from the exact
>>> state layout we use to track this relationship, allowing us
>>> to change and extend it more easily.
>> So even with the bitmask approach, we still plan to have bools for bigjoiner_slave?
> Nope. No longer necessary.
>
>>> Performed with cocci:
>>> @@
>>> expression S, E;
>>> @@
>>> (
>>>    S->bigjoiner_slave = E;
>>> |
>>> - S->bigjoiner_slave
>>> + intel_crtc_is_bigjoiner_slave(S)
>>> )
>>>
>>> @@
>>> expression S, E;
>>> @@
>>> (
>>> - E && S->bigjoiner && !intel_crtc_is_bigjoiner_slave(S)
>>> + E && intel_crtc_is_bigjoiner_master(S)
>>> |
>>> - S->bigjoiner && !intel_crtc_is_bigjoiner_slave(S)
>>> + intel_crtc_is_bigjoiner_master(S)
>>> )
>>>
>>> @@
>>> expression S;
>>> @@
>>> - (intel_crtc_is_bigjoiner_master(S))
>>> + intel_crtc_is_bigjoiner_master(S)
>>>
>>> @@
>>> expression S, E1, E2, E3;
>>> @@
>>> - intel_crtc_is_bigjoiner_slave(S) ? E1 : S->bigjoiner ? E2 : E3
>>> + intel_crtc_is_bigjoiner_slave(S) ? E1 : intel_crtc_is_bigjoiner_master(S) ? E2 : E3
>>>
>>> @@
>>> typedef bool;
>>> @@
>>> + bool intel_crtc_is_bigjoiner_slave(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state)
>>> + {
>>> + 	return crtc_state->bigjoiner_slave;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>>    intel_master_crtc(...) {...}
>>>
>>> @@
>>> typedef bool;
>>> @@
>>> + bool intel_crtc_is_bigjoiner_master(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state)
>>> + {
>>> + 	return crtc_state->bigjoiner && !crtc_state->bigjoiner_slave;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>>    intel_master_crtc(...) {...}
>>>
>>> @@
>>> typedef bool;
>>> identifier S;
>>> @@
>>> - bool is_trans_port_sync_mode(const struct intel_crtc_state *S);
>>> + bool is_trans_port_sync_mode(const struct intel_crtc_state *state);
>>> + bool intel_crtc_is_bigjoiner_slave(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state);
>>> + bool intel_crtc_is_bigjoiner_master(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state);
>> Is all of the above part of the commit message? Dont understand why its changing is_trans_port_sync_mode() ?
> I had to touch that line to get coccinelle to actually do the
> transformation. For some reason it refused to do anything if
> I just tried to add the two new lines.
>