On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 03:23:53PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> Hello Maxime,
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 07:29:25AM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> >> static const struct drm_crtc_helper_funcs ssd130x_crtc_helper_funcs = {
> >> .mode_valid = ssd130x_crtc_helper_mode_valid,
> >> - .atomic_check = drm_crtc_helper_atomic_check,
> >> + .atomic_check = ssd130x_crtc_helper_atomic_check,
> >> };
> >
> > Sorry I didn't catch that sooner, but there's no reason to call that
> > function a helper.
> >
>
> Yeah, agreed that there's no reason but others drivers already add the
> _helper prefix for struct drm_*_helper_funcs callbacks, and I did that
> in this driver as well to follow (what appears to be?) a convention.
From a quick grep, it looks like it's the exception rather than the norm
> So I've to that now for the struct drm_crtc_helper_funcs handlers to be
> consistent with the rest of the driver, e.g for plane:
>
> static const struct drm_plane_helper_funcs ssd130x_primary_plane_helper_funcs = {
> DRM_GEM_SHADOW_PLANE_HELPER_FUNCS,
> .atomic_check = ssd130x_primary_plane_helper_atomic_check,
> .atomic_update = ssd130x_primary_plane_helper_atomic_update,
> .atomic_disable = ssd130x_primary_plane_helper_atomic_disable,
> };
>
> static const struct drm_plane_funcs ssd130x_primary_plane_funcs = {
> .update_plane = drm_atomic_helper_update_plane,
> .disable_plane = drm_atomic_helper_disable_plane,
> .reset = ssd130x_primary_plane_reset,
> .atomic_duplicate_state = ssd130x_primary_plane_duplicate_state,
> .atomic_destroy_state = ssd130x_primary_plane_destroy_state,
> .destroy = drm_plane_cleanup,
> };
Ack.
I still believe we should be removing the helper part, those are not
helpers. But it's not a big deal anyway.
Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
