On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 10:41:49AM +0200, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 04:35:53PM +0200, Ville Syrjala wrote: > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > In preparation for doing a more sensible pipe vs. transcoder > > handling for bigjoiner let's rename the crtc/crtc_state in the > > top level crtc_enable/disable and the DDI encoder hooks to > > include "master" in the name. This way they won't collide with > > the per-pipe stuff. > > > > Note that at this point this is (at least partially) telling > > lies as we still run through some of these for slave pipes as > > well. But I wanted to get the huge rename out of the way so > > it won't clutter the functional patches so much. > > > > TODO: or perhaps use some other names for the per-pipe stuff instead? > > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I will then review now the patches which you could merge before the bigjoiner > stuff could be finished. I just sent a separate series with the disable_pipes bitmask stuff. > Checked this patch I guess, you were also talking that this renaming might > be not the best idea. > I also wonder whether should we really emphasize things like "master"/"slave" > in function names. I thought that one idea in our refactoring was to unify > joined pipes handling so that there are no(or at least almost no) explicit code > paths/function names for masters/slaves. There are no master vs. slave functions. The split is going to be transcoder/port vs. pipe. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel
