On 12/12/2024 12:53 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 at 05:26, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12/11/2024 3:41 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
All other submodules pass arguments directly. Drop struct
msm_dp_panel_in that is used to wrap dp_panel's submodule args and pass
all data to msm_dp_panel_get() directly.
Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c | 9 +--------
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_panel.c | 15 ++++++++-------
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_panel.h | 10 ++--------
3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
Change not necessarily tied to catalog cleanup, and can be sent
independently IMO.
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
index cb02d5d5b404925707c737ed75e9e83fbec34f83..a2cdcdac042d63a59ff71aefcecb7f8b22f01167 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
@@ -722,9 +722,6 @@ static int msm_dp_init_sub_modules(struct msm_dp_display_private *dp)
{
int rc = 0;
struct device *dev = &dp->msm_dp_display.pdev->dev;
- struct msm_dp_panel_in panel_in = {
- .dev = dev,
- };
struct phy *phy;
phy = devm_phy_get(dev, "dp");
@@ -765,11 +762,7 @@ static int msm_dp_init_sub_modules(struct msm_dp_display_private *dp)
goto error_link;
}
- panel_in.aux = dp->aux;
- panel_in.catalog = dp->catalog;
- panel_in.link = dp->link;
-
- dp->panel = msm_dp_panel_get(&panel_in);
+ dp->panel = msm_dp_panel_get(dev, dp->aux, dp->link, dp->catalog);
if (IS_ERR(dp->panel)) {
rc = PTR_ERR(dp->panel);
DRM_ERROR("failed to initialize panel, rc = %d\n", rc);
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_panel.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_panel.c
index 25869e2ac93aba0bffeddae9f95917d81870d8cb..49bbcde8cf60ac1b297310a50191135d79b092fb 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_panel.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_panel.c
@@ -659,25 +659,26 @@ static int msm_dp_panel_parse_dt(struct msm_dp_panel *msm_dp_panel)
return 0;
}
-struct msm_dp_panel *msm_dp_panel_get(struct msm_dp_panel_in *in)
+struct msm_dp_panel *msm_dp_panel_get(struct device *dev, struct drm_dp_aux *aux,
+ struct msm_dp_link *link, struct msm_dp_catalog *catalog)
{
so this API, takes a filled input panel, makes a msm_dp_panel out of it
by filling out more information on top of what was already passed in and
returns a msm_dp_panel.
So IOW, converts a msm_dp_panel_in to msm_dp_panel.
What is the gain by passing individual params rather than passing them
as a struct instead? Isnt it better to have it within that struct to
show the conversion and moreover we dont have to pass in 4 arguments
instead of 1.
We gain uniformity. All other modules use params. And, as pointed out
by Maxime during HDMI Codec reviews, it's easier to handle function
params - it makes it more obvious that one of the params got missing.
Point noted but a very long param list also makes it harder to manage.
So we should really evaluate on a case-by-case basis and not generalize
here.
Here its only 4, so i would say its kindof okay. If it goes beyond it,
then msm_dp_panel_in is probably going to come back.
Reviewed-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
