On 2023-04-20 04:03:31, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: [..] > >>> -static void dpu_hw_setup_vsync_source(struct dpu_hw_mdp *mdp, > >>> +static void dpu_hw_setup_vsync_source_v1(struct dpu_hw_mdp *mdp, > >>> struct dpu_vsync_source_cfg *cfg) > >> > >> In my opinion _v1 is not really descriptive here. Could you please rename it to dpu_hw_setup_vsync_source_no_vsync_sel() ? > > v1 refers to the CTL rev 100 a.k.a 1.0.0 a.k.a 1, but that's not > > yet very well formulated upstream.. if we even need it.. I think v1 just refers to "the first next variant of this function", similar to how for example Microsoft COM APIs start without a suffix, then get 1, 2, 3 etc appended as new variants "of the same" trickle in. > Yeah, but this mdp_top, not the ctl. And for CTL I'd probably rename _v1 > to _active to follow actual feature name. Correct, I just got lazily inspired by downstream here. There it switches on SDE_MDP_VSYNC_SEL which is based on DPU >= 5.0.0 as explained in the patch. > >> Or maybe rename dpu_hw_setup_vsync_source() to dpu_hw_setup_vsync_source_vsync_sel() and drop _v1 from this function. Maybe add _and_ in there? > >> > >> Up to you. - Marijn
