On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 03:56:06PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jan 2020, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi > > > > Am 10.01.20 um 12:59 schrieb Jani Nikula: > >> On Fri, 10 Jan 2020, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> The callback struct drm_driver.get_scanout_position() is deprecated in > >>> favor of struct drm_crtc_helper_funcs.get_scanout_position(). > >>> > >>> i915 doesn't use CRTC helpers. The patch duplicates the caller > >>> drm_calc_vbltimestamp_from_scanoutpos() for i915, such that the callback > >>> function is not needed. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 3 +- > >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 117 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.h | 9 +-- > >>> 3 files changed, 119 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > >> > >> Not really enthusiastic about the diffstat in a "cleanup" series. > > > > Well, the cleanup is about the content of drm_driver :) > > > >> > >> I wonder if you could add a generic helper version of > >> drm_calc_vbltimestamp_from_scanoutpos where you pass the > >> get_scanout_position function as a parameter. Both > >> drm_calc_vbltimestamp_from_scanoutpos and the new > >> i915_calc_vbltimestamp_from_scanoutpos would then be fairly thin > >> wrappers passing in the relevant get_scanout_position function. > > > > Of course. Will be in v2 of the series. > > Please give Ville (Cc'd) a moment before sending v2 in case he wants to > chime in on this. Passing the function pointer was one option I considered for this a while back. Can't remeber what other solutions I condsidered. But I guess I didn't like any of them enough to make an actual patch. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
