Re: [PATCH 07/10] drm/virtio: Drop dummy gamma table support

Julia Lawall
2016-04-12T14:27:54Z

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016, Emil Velikov wrote:

> On 30 March 2016 at 10:51, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> > No need to confuse userspace like this.
> >
> > Cc: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_display.c | 9 ---------
> > 1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_display.c
> > index 4854dac87e24..12b72e29678a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_display.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_display.c
> > @@ -38,13 +38,6 @@
> > #define XRES_MAX 8192
> > #define YRES_MAX 8192
> >
> > -static void virtio_gpu_crtc_gamma_set(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
> > - u16 *red, u16 *green, u16 *blue,
> > - uint32_t start, uint32_t size)
> > -{
> > - /* TODO */
> > -}
> > -
> > static void
> > virtio_gpu_hide_cursor(struct virtio_gpu_device *vgdev,
> > struct virtio_gpu_output *output)
> > @@ -173,7 +166,6 @@ static int virtio_gpu_page_flip(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
> > static const struct drm_crtc_funcs virtio_gpu_crtc_funcs = {
> > .cursor_set2 = virtio_gpu_crtc_cursor_set,
> > .cursor_move = virtio_gpu_crtc_cursor_move,
> > - .gamma_set = virtio_gpu_crtc_gamma_set,
> > .set_config = drm_atomic_helper_set_config,
> > .destroy = drm_crtc_cleanup,
> >
> > @@ -416,7 +408,6 @@ static int vgdev_output_init(struct virtio_gpu_device *vgdev, int index)
> > return PTR_ERR(plane);
> > drm_crtc_init_with_planes(dev, crtc, plane, NULL,
> > &virtio_gpu_crtc_funcs, NULL);
> > - drm_mode_crtc_set_gamma_size(crtc, 256);
> > drm_crtc_helper_add(crtc, &virtio_gpu_crtc_helper_funcs);
> > plane->crtc = crtc;
> >
> Out of curiosity:
>
> Coccinelle should be able to handle/generate such patches, shouldn't
> it ? I believe in the past people used it for similar
> refactoring/cleanups, yet not (m)any of them [the cocci files] got
> checked in the kernel tree.
>
> Thinking about future drivers derived from outdated sources - do you
> think it's a good/bad idea to check/run them along side the existing
> ones ?

The issue is that there is no point to put an empty function in a
structure?

It would be a bit subtle for Coccinelle, because it requires also knowing
that one is allowed to leave that particular field empty.

julia