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

["Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>]

On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 04:07:45PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Mar 2024, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 10:41:49AM +0200, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote:
> >> 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.
> 
> Besides, for modern platforms the spec has already been changed to use
> primary/secondary terminology. When renaming or refactoring stuff,
> please switch to them instead of sticking with master/slave.

If the spec got updated then we should probably just do a full rename
pass over the whole codebase instead of confusing things more by
mixing up the terminology.

Also we should probably s/bigjoiner/joiner/ to make it clear that
all of it also applies to uncompressed joiner as well.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel