On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 11:10:06AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Tue, 03 Jul 2018, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 04:53:28PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> Starting from ICL or gen 11 we have a new DSI block which requires > >> completely different programming from the current implementation. Having > >> them in the same file would be confusing. Rename the current DSI and DSI > >> PLL implementation files as gen7_dsi.c and gen7_dsi_pll.c. > > > > gen7 is a rather odd name for this. vlv would seem more > > appropriate, though not particularly good either. > > Daniel and Chris suggested a gen based name, and specifically to name > both the old and new with a prefix. gen based names rarely make sense when it comes to the display. If there's a display thing with a gen7 name I immediately think "oh that's ivb, maybe also hsw", but never in a million years would I think of vlv. Also the gen naming for display has getting even more confusing since glk display pipes were pulled in from cnl. So if you read the spec and see a "gen10 display" note it generally applies to glk as well, even though for us glk is gen9. So I think the generally best bet is to never use a genX label on any display code. > I guess I would've gone with > "legacy" or "byt". Madhav has gone for gen11 prefixed function naming in > the new series. "byt" I would not use because everything else is named "vlv". So I guess "vlv" is what I would suggest here. Or that earlier "legacy" idea. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
