Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/5] drm/i915: Rename primary plane rotation property to "plane-rotation"

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

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 02:20:57PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 04:06:31PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 03:46:39PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 06:07:27PM +0530, Sagar Arun Kamble wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 23:15 +0200, ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'd prefer have the crtc "rotation" property rotate the entire crtc
> > > > > (planes and all). So for that reason we'd need to come up with some
> > > > > other name for the "rotate the primary plane only" property.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Originally I had though that omapdrm had already made the decision for
> > > > > us, but after another look, it looks like it never attaches the
> > > > > "rotation" property to the crtc. So we can still change the name
> > > > > without any ABI breakage.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Suggestions for better naming scheme are also welcome....
> > > > I would suggest name to be "primary-rotation" or "primary_rotation". It
> > > > seems more aligned to member variable primary_rotation as well.
> > > 
> > > Well, "primary plane" is an Intel term, so I don't know if other people
> > > would find it sensible. But I guess you can consider any plane "primary"
> > > if it's assigned to act as the crtc scanout engine...
> > 
> > It seems I need to scrap this plan actually. Rob hit me with the clue
> > bat on irc, and omapdrm does in fact install the "rotation" prop on
> > the crtc. So I guess I need to rename the "rotation" prop to something
> > else "crtc-rotation" maybe? Anyone have a good name up their sleeve?
> 
> To recap, you mean that the CRTC rotation property is to be the control
> over the rotation of the primary plane, and that we need a new property
> name for "rotate the world"? In which case, I'd suggest "rotate-all"
> since it seems akin to the action that you take upon setting it (as
> opposed to the state of the planes).

Yeah something like that. "rotation" vs "rotate-all" isn't super
consistent though, but I guess the only real rule about property
names is inconsistency, so I'm fine with that idea.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC