[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/8] drm/i915: Introduce intel_arm_planes_on_crtc()

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 11:38:44AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Ville Syrjala <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> >
> > No reason the high level intel_update_crtc() needs to know
> > that there is something magical about the commit order of
> > planes between different platforms. So let's hide that
> > detail even better.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  .../gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c | 19 +++++++++++++++----
> >  .../gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.h |  6 ++----
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c  |  6 +-----
> >  3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c
> > index 3355eb637eac..bba2f105b7dd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c
> > @@ -716,8 +716,8 @@ void intel_update_planes_on_crtc(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> >  	}
> >  }
> >  
> > -void skl_arm_planes_on_crtc(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> > -			    struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> > +static void skl_arm_planes_on_crtc(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> > +				   struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> >  {
> >  	struct intel_crtc_state *old_crtc_state =
> >  		intel_atomic_get_old_crtc_state(state, crtc);
> > @@ -751,8 +751,8 @@ void skl_arm_planes_on_crtc(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> >  	}
> >  }
> >  
> > -void i9xx_arm_planes_on_crtc(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> > -			     struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> > +static void i9xx_arm_planes_on_crtc(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> > +				    struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> >  {
> >  	struct intel_crtc_state *new_crtc_state =
> >  		intel_atomic_get_new_crtc_state(state, crtc);
> > @@ -777,6 +777,17 @@ void i9xx_arm_planes_on_crtc(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> >  	}
> >  }
> >  
> > +void intel_arm_planes_on_crtc(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> > +			      struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> > +{
> 
> I don't much like the intel_arm_ prefix here. I'd go for intel_plane_
> something or other.

intel_plane_ is rather bad since this operates on multiple planes.
Though I'm not super happy with the _arm_ vs. _update_ thing we have
going on now. The plane hooks I made .update_noarm() and .update_arm()
(which certainly has a few bad puns in it) so should perhaps just
try to follow a similar naming convention for the high level stuff.

I guess I'd prefer intel_crtc_ as the prefix actually since thats
what we pass in anyway.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel