Re: [PATCH] drm/exec, drm/gpuvm: Prefer u32 over uint32_t

["Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>]

Hi,

On 1/19/24 16:32, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 10:05:57AM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
>>> The relatively recently introduced drm/exec utility was using uint32_t
>>> in its interface, which was then also carried over to drm/gpuvm.
>>>
>>> Prefer u32 in new code and update drm/exec and drm/gpuvm accordingly.
>>>
>>> Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
>>> Cc: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@redhat.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_exec.c | 2 +-
>>> include/drm/drm_exec.h     | 4 ++--
>>> include/drm/drm_gpuvm.h    | 2 +-
>>> 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
>>
>> I was surprised we have quite a few places using the c99 types rather
>> than kernel types.
>>
>> $ git grep -ce uint[0-9][0-9]_t drivers/gpu/drm/*.c
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c:1
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c:7
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_state_helper.c:1
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_uapi.c:17
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_color_mgmt.c:4
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c:6
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c:3
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_damage_helper.c:2
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_debugfs_crc.c:1
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_exec.c:1
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fb_helper.c:10
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_format_helper.c:6
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fourcc.c:6
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_framebuffer.c:5
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem.c:1
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_dma_helper.c:1
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c:1
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_ttm_helper.c:1
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_vram_helper.c:5
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_lease.c:6
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mipi_dbi.c:3
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mode_config.c:4
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mode_object.c:20
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_helper.c:1
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c:1
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_of.c:3
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_plane.c:35
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_plane_helper.c:2
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_prime.c:9
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c:3
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_property.c:11
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_simple_kms_helper.c:4
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c:26
>>
>> but maybe not worth the churn for what is already there for a long time?

This originally dates back to around or slightly after when the drm code 
was a set of template headers with the objective of sharing code with 
some bsds, and then I guess it also leaked. The reason I sent this patch 
was I made a review comment of this for drm_gpuvm and then also promised 
to send a patch against drm_exec.

> Personally, I think the one time churn is worth it to unify and keep the
> codebase in kernel types only. This is basically what we did in i915
> years ago, and new c99 types don't really even creep in because there
> are zero examples around. It's natural to follow the style around you
> instead of mixing.

+1.

/Thomas


> BR,
> Jani.
>
>