Le dim. 30 août 2020 à 22:28, Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a
écrit :
Hi Laurent.
>
> Please read the cover letter, it explains why it's done this way.
The
> whole point of this patchset is to merge DSI and DBI frameworks
in a
> way that can be maintained.
I think this proves the point that the proposed naming is
confusing. At
least a rename would be required.
Do you have any inputs on the amount of rename we are looking into.
Is this a simple s/struct mipi_dsi_device/struct mipi_dxi_device/
or something more?
We should script the rename as it will tocuh a lot of files,
and without a script we would chase this. But once it is scripted
it would be trivial to perform.
I did not look at this enough, but I had an idea that we
would have do to a s/dsi/dxi/ in a lot of places.
(dxi is my best proposal at the moment for something covering both dsi
and dbi).
dcs?
Since DBI and DSI panels generally all use DCS commands.
-Paul
