Hello, On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:04:26PM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > Am 13.07.23 um 10:23 schrieb Uwe Kleine-König: > > after most feedback for my series "drm/crtc: Rename struct drm_crtc::dev > > to drm_dev"[1] was positive in principle, here comes a new series. I > > didn't call it v2 as it is different enough to stand on its own. > > To me, it didn't seel as if the discussion was over yet. Up to when I started preparing this series my impression was that there was a general acceptance that ->dev is bad and the hot topics were more about details like "should this be a single patch" and "What is the best name instead of dev?". For the first this new series is me implmenting what was recommended and for the latter it's what I think is what most people favoured. And I didn't send this series to suppress discussion about the idea of using a consistent name != "dev". > In these patches, I find it fairly irritating that the code is now full of > > dev = crtc->drm; > dev = plane->drm; > dev = fb->drm; > > and so on. Having these differences in naming is even worse than keeping the > current field name 'dev'. If that helps you: I plan to tackle these in a followup. I agree that's ugly, but fixing these in the same series is too much and if we agree that dev = crtc->dev; is ugly, there is then an intermediate state that either used drm = crtc->dev; or dev = crtc->drm; to finaly reach drm = crtc->drm; If you see a better way, please let me know. I don't see any. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
