[PATCH 1/8] drm/i915: Rename the crtc/crtc_states in the top level DDI hooks/etc

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 11:08:56AM +0200, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 10:50:01AM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 10:41:49AM +0200, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 04:35:53PM +0200, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > > > 
> > > > In preparation for doing a more sensible pipe vs. transcoder
> > > > handling for bigjoiner let's rename the crtc/crtc_state in the
> > > > top level crtc_enable/disable and the DDI encoder hooks to
> > > > include "master" in the name. This way they won't collide with
> > > > the per-pipe stuff.
> > > > 
> > > > Note that at this point this is (at least partially) telling
> > > > lies as we still run through some of these for slave pipes as
> > > > well. But I wanted to get the huge rename out of the way so
> > > > it won't clutter the functional patches so much.
> > > > 
> > > > TODO: or perhaps use some other names for the per-pipe stuff instead?
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > > 
> > > I will then review now the patches which you could merge before the bigjoiner
> > > stuff could be finished.
> > 
> > I just sent a separate series with the disable_pipes bitmask
> > stuff.
> 
> I already reviewed all the patches, including that one, if there were
> no changes, I guess you can apply that r-b there as well.

Sure. Thanks.

> 
> > 
> > > Checked this patch I guess, you were also talking that this renaming might
> > > be not the best idea.
> > > I also wonder whether should we really emphasize things like "master"/"slave"
> > > in function names. I thought that one idea in our refactoring was to unify
> > > joined pipes handling so that there are no(or at least almost no) explicit code
> > > paths/function names for masters/slaves.
> > 
> > There are no master vs. slave functions. The split is going to be
> > transcoder/port vs. pipe.
> 
> In practice thats what you want to achieve, the functions which also include encoder
> programming and/or handling joined pipes you wanted to add master in the name.

I wanted clarity which crtc state is for which purpose. But I think we
achieve that by naming the per-pipe variables a bit differently instead
(eg. pipe_crtc + pipe_crtc_state).

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel