[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 04/12] drm/i915: s/PIPECONF/TRANSCONF/

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 12:52:46PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2023, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 12:05:33PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> On Tue, 14 Feb 2023, Ville Syrjala <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> >> >
> >> > Rename PIPECONF to TRANSCONF to make it clear what it actually
> >> > applies to.
> >> >
> >> > While the usual convention is to pick the earliers name I think
> >> > in this case it's more clear to use the later name. Especially
> >> > as even the register offset is in the wrong range (0x70000 vs.
> >> > 0x60000) and thus makes it look like this is per-pipe.
> >> >
> >> > There is one place in gvt that's doing something with TRANSCONF
> >> > while iterating with for_each_pipe(). So that might not be doing
> >> > the right thing for TRANSCODER_EDP, dunno. Not knowing what it
> >> > does I left it as is to avoid breakage.
> >> 
> >> I recently looked at _PIPE_EDP usage, and thought all of it looked a bit
> >> suspect, but didn't bother to dig deeper. Maybe after this it could be
> >> removed?
> >
> > I think it needs to stay due to the pipe_offsets[] stuff
> > and hw making a mess of pipe vs. transcoder registers.
> > But no one should really use it anywhere else.
> 
> I wonder how many underscores more we need to add to keep it that
> way. :p

People are probably accustomed to one or two. So maybe three?
Could also try adding a comment, but dunno if it would any
more effective.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel