Hi,
On 1/19/24 16:32, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 10:05:57AM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
The relatively recently introduced drm/exec utility was using uint32_t
in its interface, which was then also carried over to drm/gpuvm.
Prefer u32 in new code and update drm/exec and drm/gpuvm accordingly.
Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_exec.c | 2 +-
include/drm/drm_exec.h | 4 ++--
include/drm/drm_gpuvm.h | 2 +-
3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Reviewed-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx>
I was surprised we have quite a few places using the c99 types rather
than kernel types.
$ git grep -ce uint[0-9][0-9]_t drivers/gpu/drm/*.c
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c:1
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c:7
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_state_helper.c:1
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_uapi.c:17
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_color_mgmt.c:4
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c:6
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c:3
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_damage_helper.c:2
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_debugfs_crc.c:1
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_exec.c:1
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fb_helper.c:10
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_format_helper.c:6
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fourcc.c:6
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_framebuffer.c:5
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem.c:1
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_dma_helper.c:1
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c:1
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_ttm_helper.c:1
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_vram_helper.c:5
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_lease.c:6
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mipi_dbi.c:3
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mode_config.c:4
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mode_object.c:20
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_helper.c:1
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c:1
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_of.c:3
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_plane.c:35
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_plane_helper.c:2
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_prime.c:9
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c:3
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_property.c:11
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_simple_kms_helper.c:4
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c:26
but maybe not worth the churn for what is already there for a long time?
This originally dates back to around or slightly after when the drm code
was a set of template headers with the objective of sharing code with
some bsds, and then I guess it also leaked. The reason I sent this patch
was I made a review comment of this for drm_gpuvm and then also promised
to send a patch against drm_exec.
Personally, I think the one time churn is worth it to unify and keep the
codebase in kernel types only. This is basically what we did in i915
years ago, and new c99 types don't really even creep in because there
are zero examples around. It's natural to follow the style around you
instead of mixing.
+1.
/Thomas
BR,
Jani.
