On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 11:05:56AM +0000, Mihail Atanassov wrote: > On Tuesday, 26 November 2019 19:24:45 GMT Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > Hi Mihail. > > Hi Sam, > > > > > > Ack, but with one caveat: bridge->dev is the struct drm_device that is > > > the bridge client, we need to add a bridge->device (patch 29 in this > > > series) which is the struct device that will manage the bridge lifetime. > > Other places uses the variable name "drm" for a drm_device. > > This is less confusion than the "dev" name. > > > > It seems a recent trend to use the variable name "drm" so you can find a > > lot of places using "dev". > > > > bike-shedding - but also about readability. > > > > Sam > > > > I'm okay with the idea, I can do a follow-up patch or series for the > rename; I expect it would be a bit hefty to do it prior to this. > > @Daniel, thoughts on s/bridge.dev/bridge.drm/ and > s/bridge.device/bridge.dev/ after this series? I'm firmly in the "no opionon" on this. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
