Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: [dropping some recipients since my SMTP server was complaining about the size] > Hello Thomas, > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 12:19:37PM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: >> Am 12.07.23 um 11:46 schrieb Uwe Kleine-König: >> > Hello, >> > >> > while I debugged an issue in the imx-lcdc driver I was constantly >> > irritated about struct drm_device pointer variables being named "dev" >> > because with that name I usually expect a struct device pointer. >> > >> > I think there is a big benefit when these are all renamed to "drm_dev". >> >> If you rename drm_crtc.dev, you should also address *all* other data >> structures. > > Yes. Changing drm_crtc::dev was some effort, so I thought to send that > one out before doing the same to > > drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr > drm_atomic_state > drm_master > drm_bridge > drm_client_dev > drm_connector > drm_debugfs_entry > drm_encoder > drm_fb_helper > drm_minor > drm_framebuffer > drm_gem_object > drm_plane > drm_property > drm_property_blob > drm_vblank_crtc > > when in the end the intention isn't welcome. > >> > I have no strong preference here though, so "drmdev" or "drm" are fine >> > for me, too. Let the bikesheding begin! >> >> We've discussed this to death. IIRC 'drm' would be the prefered choice. > > "drm" at least has the advantage to be the 2nd most common name. With > Paul Kocialkowski prefering "drm_dev" there is no clear favourite yet. I think that either "drm" or "drm_dev" would be more clear than "dev", which I also found it confusing and thinking about a "struct device". Probably leaning to "drm", since as you said is the second most used name in drivers that assign crtc->dev to a local variable. > Maybe all the other people with strong opinions are dead if this was > "discussed to death" before? :-) > > Best regards > Uwe > > -- > Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | > Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- Best regards, Javier Martinez Canillas Core Platforms Red Hat
