On Wed, 15 Sep 2021, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 01:16:58PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Mon, 13 Sep 2021, Ville Syrjala <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > PIPECONF becamse TRANSCONF when HSW introduced the EDP transcoder. >> > Bigjoiner is making life even more confusing by introducing >> > a N:1 relationship between pipes and transcoders. In that case >> > we only enable/configure the transcoder corresponding to the >> > master pipe. Let's do some renames to make it clear we're dealing >> > with the transcoder rather than pipe when it comes to >> > PIPECONF/TRANSCONF. >> > >> > I decided to leave the _cpu_ part out from the function/macro >> > names since the PCH transcoder related stuff already has a >> > _pch_ in their name. So shouldn't be possible to confuse them. >> >> Wondering about flipping the names to intel_transcoder_enable and >> intel_transcoder_disable, with a potential move to a separate file. > > If you're thinking about intel_transcoder.c then I doubts > about it making much sense. Seems a bit too specific, > and the transcoder vs. pipe split has been a rather fluid > over the years so not all platforms may even fit into the > same mold. > > I think what we want to do to the modeset code in > intel_display.c is mainly just split on the high level vs. > low level boundary somewhere. But splitting the low level > code further is probably going to require more thought. Yeah, just throwing ideas around, really. We could start with a new intel_modeset.[ch] and start moving the high level modeset functions there? Because moving everything else out from intel_display.c is going to take forever, so it's perhaps easier to move the high level stuff instead. *shrug* BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
