[PATCH v2] drm/dp: move intel_dp_vsc_sdp_pack() to generic helper

[Abhinav Kumar]

On 2/20/2024 11:41 AM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 11:27:18AM -0800, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/20/2024 11:20 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 21:05, Dmitry Baryshkov
>>> <dmitry.baryshkov at linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 20:53, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk at quicinc.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/20/2024 10:49 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 at 21:08, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk at quicinc.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> intel_dp_vsc_sdp_pack() can be re-used by other DRM drivers as well.
>>>>>>> Lets move this to drm_dp_helper to achieve this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> changes in v2:
>>>>>>>            - rebased on top of drm-tip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Acked-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov at linaro.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> v1 had an explicit comment before the ack:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I remember the comment. I did not make any changes to v2 other than
>>>>> just rebasing it on drm-tip to get the ack from i915 folks.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>       From my side, with the promise of the size fixup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However I observe neither a second patch removing the size argument
>>>>>> nor it being dropped as a part of this patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, now that in v2 we got the ack for this patch, I can spin a v3 with
>>>>> the addition of the next patch to remove the size OR as another series
>>>>> so as to not block the main series which needs this patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would prefer the latter.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't work this way. The comment should have been fixed for v2.
>>>
>>> This probably deserves some explanation. Currently there is only one
>>> user of this function. So it is easy to fix it. Once there are several
>>> users, you have to fix all of them at the same time, patching
>>> different drm subtrees. That complicates the life of maintainers.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, understood. Its easier to fix it now if its really needed.
>>
>> Actually, I think the reason the size was passed was to make sure
>> a valid struct dp_sdp *sdp was being passed.
> 
> The size is supposed to be the size of *hardware* buffer where this
> gets written into. But looks like this wasn't done correctly when
> the code was copy-pasted from the HDMI inforframe code.
> 

Alright, in that case, let me post a patch to drop this and let me know 
if that works for you.