On 21/04/2023 00:51, Marijn Suijten wrote:
On 2023-04-20 04:03:31, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
[..]
-static void dpu_hw_setup_vsync_source(struct dpu_hw_mdp *mdp,
+static void dpu_hw_setup_vsync_source_v1(struct dpu_hw_mdp *mdp,
struct dpu_vsync_source_cfg *cfg)
In my opinion _v1 is not really descriptive here. Could you please rename it to dpu_hw_setup_vsync_source_no_vsync_sel() ?
v1 refers to the CTL rev 100 a.k.a 1.0.0 a.k.a 1, but that's not
yet very well formulated upstream.. if we even need it..
I think v1 just refers to "the first next variant of this function",
similar to how for example Microsoft COM APIs start without a suffix,
then get 1, 2, 3 etc appended as new variants "of the same" trickle in.
Yeah, but this mdp_top, not the ctl. And for CTL I'd probably rename _v1
to _active to follow actual feature name.
Correct, I just got lazily inspired by downstream here. There it
switches on SDE_MDP_VSYNC_SEL which is based on DPU >= 5.0.0 as
explained in the patch.
Or maybe rename dpu_hw_setup_vsync_source() to dpu_hw_setup_vsync_source_vsync_sel() and drop _v1 from this function.
Maybe add _and_ in there?
Either way will work.
Up to you.
- Marijn
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
