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 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@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@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.

> 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.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel