On Tue, 27 Apr 2021, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:07:21AM +0000, Souza, Jose wrote: >> On Mon, 2021-04-26 at 21:56 +0300, Ville Syrjala wrote: >> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > The pipe crc code slipped theough the net when we tried to >> > eliminate all crtc->index==pipe abuses. Remedy that. >> > >> > And while at it get rid of those nasty intel_crtc+drm_crtc >> > pointer aliases. >> >> intel_crtc is broadly used, > > Not anymore. We've cleaned up almost all of it. Looks like only ~40 left > vs. ~600 the other name. Probably a good time to clean up the rest > finally. Ack. > >> also we have the same for other structs like intel_connector, in my option that is better than _crtc x crtc. > > The _crtc is explicitly ugly to make sure people leave it well > alone. Otherwise we can never get rid of these horrible aliasing > pointers. It should only make an appearance in core/helper vfuncs > and such. At some point I was even pondering some kind of macro > magic to create semi-automatic wrappers so that we could always > just use the intel_ types in our vfunc implementations. > > intel_crtc we've cleaned up the most I think, intel_encoder a bit less > perhaps, and intel_connector not really at all. Hence you see a lot more > of intel_connector floating around. We also don't usually use the intel_ > types for connector states. Mainly because most of the time you don't > need anyting from there. Ack. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
