Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/8] drm/i915: Introduce intel_arm_planes_on_crtc()

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2022, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 11:38:44AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Ville Syrjala <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
>> >
>> > No reason the high level intel_update_crtc() needs to know
>> > that there is something magical about the commit order of
>> > planes between different platforms. So let's hide that
>> > detail even better.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
>> > ---
>> >  .../gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c | 19 +++++++++++++++----
>> >  .../gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.h |  6 ++----
>> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c  |  6 +-----
>> >  3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c
>> > index 3355eb637eac..bba2f105b7dd 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c
>> > @@ -716,8 +716,8 @@ void intel_update_planes_on_crtc(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
>> >  	}
>> >  }
>> >  
>> > -void skl_arm_planes_on_crtc(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
>> > -			    struct intel_crtc *crtc)
>> > +static void skl_arm_planes_on_crtc(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
>> > +				   struct intel_crtc *crtc)
>> >  {
>> >  	struct intel_crtc_state *old_crtc_state =
>> >  		intel_atomic_get_old_crtc_state(state, crtc);
>> > @@ -751,8 +751,8 @@ void skl_arm_planes_on_crtc(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
>> >  	}
>> >  }
>> >  
>> > -void i9xx_arm_planes_on_crtc(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
>> > -			     struct intel_crtc *crtc)
>> > +static void i9xx_arm_planes_on_crtc(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
>> > +				    struct intel_crtc *crtc)
>> >  {
>> >  	struct intel_crtc_state *new_crtc_state =
>> >  		intel_atomic_get_new_crtc_state(state, crtc);
>> > @@ -777,6 +777,17 @@ void i9xx_arm_planes_on_crtc(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
>> >  	}
>> >  }
>> >  
>> > +void intel_arm_planes_on_crtc(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
>> > +			      struct intel_crtc *crtc)
>> > +{
>> 
>> I don't much like the intel_arm_ prefix here. I'd go for intel_plane_
>> something or other.
>
> intel_plane_ is rather bad since this operates on multiple planes.
> Though I'm not super happy with the _arm_ vs. _update_ thing we have
> going on now. The plane hooks I made .update_noarm() and .update_arm()
> (which certainly has a few bad puns in it) so should perhaps just
> try to follow a similar naming convention for the high level stuff.
>
> I guess I'd prefer intel_crtc_ as the prefix actually since thats
> what we pass in anyway.

We can bikeshed this later, I think the patch is net positive as-is.

BR,
Jani.



-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center