On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 12:46:33PM +0200, Christian König 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". > > I have no strong preference here though, so "drmdev" or "drm" are fine > > for me, too. Let the bikesheding begin! > > > > Some statistics: > > > > $ git grep -ohE 'struct drm_device *\* *[^ (),;]*' v6.5-rc1 | sort | uniq -c | sort -n > > 1 struct drm_device *adev_to_drm > > 1 struct drm_device *drm_ > > 1 struct drm_device *drm_dev > > 1 struct drm_device *drm_dev > > 1 struct drm_device *pdev > > 1 struct drm_device *rdev > > 1 struct drm_device *vdev > > 2 struct drm_device *dcss_drv_dev_to_drm > > 2 struct drm_device **ddev > > 2 struct drm_device *drm_dev_alloc > > 2 struct drm_device *mock > > 2 struct drm_device *p_ddev > > 5 struct drm_device *device > > 9 struct drm_device * dev > > 25 struct drm_device *d > > 95 struct drm_device * > > 216 struct drm_device *ddev > > 234 struct drm_device *drm_dev > > 611 struct drm_device *drm > > 4190 struct drm_device *dev > > > > This series starts with renaming struct drm_crtc::dev to drm_dev. If > > it's not only me and others like the result of this effort it should be > > followed up by adapting the other structs and the individual usages in > > the different drivers. > > > > To make this series a bit easier handleable, I first added an alias for > > drm_crtc::dev, then converted the drivers one after another and the last > > patch drops the "dev" name. This has the advantage of being easier to > > review, and if I should have missed an instance only the last patch must > > be dropped/reverted. Also this series might conflict with other patches, > > in this case the remaining patches can still go in (apart from the last > > one of course). Maybe it also makes sense to delay applying the last > > patch by one development cycle? > > When you automatically generate the patch (with cocci for example) I usually > prefer a single patch instead. Maybe I'm too stupid, but only parts of this patch were created by coccinelle. I failed to convert code like - spin_lock_irq(&crtc->dev->event_lock); + spin_lock_irq(&crtc->drm_dev->event_lock); Added Julia to Cc, maybe she has a hint?! (Up to now it's only @@ struct drm_crtc *crtc; @@ -crtc->dev +crtc->drm_dev ) > Background is that this makes merge conflicts easier to handle and detect. Really? Each file (apart from include/drm/drm_crtc.h) is only touched once. So unless I'm missing something you don't get less or easier conflicts by doing it all in a single patch. But you gain the freedom to drop a patch for one driver without having to drop the rest with it. So I still like the split version better, but I'm open to a more verbose reasoning from your side. > When you have multiple patches and a merge conflict because of some added > lines using the old field the build breaks only on the last patch which > removes the old field. Then you can revert/drop the last patch without having to respin the whole single patch and thus caring for still more conflicts that arise until the new version is sent. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
