On 07/09/2020 14:57, Paul Cercueil wrote: > > > 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. mipi_disp / mipi_display ? since it's all about mipi display interfaces with different transport protocols. Neil > > -Paul > > > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
