On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 11:08:56AM +0200, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 10:50:01AM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > 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. > > I already reviewed all the patches, including that one, if there were > no changes, I guess you can apply that r-b there as well. Sure. Thanks. > > > > > > 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. > > In practice thats what you want to achieve, the functions which also include encoder > programming and/or handling joined pipes you wanted to add master in the name. I wanted clarity which crtc state is for which purpose. But I think we achieve that by naming the per-pipe variables a bit differently instead (eg. pipe_crtc + pipe_crtc_state). -- Ville Syrjälä Intel
