On 7/19/24 10:29 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 3:07 AM Dmitry Baryshkov > <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>>> However it might be better to go other way arround. >>>> Do we want for all the drivers to migrate to _multi()-kind of API? If >>>> so, what about renaming the multi and non-multi functions accordingly >>>> and making the old API a wrapper around the multi() function? >>>> >>> >>> I think this would be good. For the wrapper to make a multi() function >>> non-multi, what do you think about a macro that would just pass a >>> default dsi_ctx to the multi() func and return on error? In this case >>> it would also be good to let the code fill inline instead of generating >>> a whole new function imo. >>> >>> So in this scenario all the mipi dsi functions would be multi functions, >>> and a function could be called non-multi like MACRO_NAME(func) at the >>> call site. >> >> Sounds good to me. I'd suggest to wait for a day or two for further >> feedback / comments from other developers. > > I don't totally hate the idea of going full-multi and just having > macros to wrap anyone who hasn't converted, but I'd be curious how > much driver bloat this will cause for drivers that aren't converted. > Would the compiler do a good job optimizing here? Maybe we don't care > if we just want everyone to switch over? If nothing else, it might > make sense to at least keep both versions for the very generic > functions (mipi_dsi_generic_write_multi and > mipi_dsi_dcs_write_buffer_multi) > > ...oh, but wait. We probably have the non-multi versions wrap the > _multi ones. One of the things about the _multi functions is that they > are also "chatty" and print errors. They're designed for the use case > of a pile of init code where any error is fatal and needs to be > printed. I suspect that somewhere along the way someone will want to > be able to call these functions and not have them print errors... > I think what would be interesting is if we had "chatty" member as a part of mipi_dsi_multi_context as a check for if dev_err should run. That way, we could make any function not chatty. If we did this, is there any reason for a driver to not switch over to using the multi functions? > Maybe going with Dmitry's suggested syntax is the best option here? > Depending on how others feel, we could potentially even get rid of the > special error message and just stringify the function name for the > error message? > The problem with any macro solution that defines new multi functions is that it creates a lot of bloat. Defining the function through macros might be smaller than defining them manually, but there are still twice as many function declarations as there would be if we went all multi. The generated code is still just as big as if we manually defined everything. I think a macro that defines functions should be more of a last resort if we don't have any other options. > -Doug -- Tejas Vipin
