On Thu, 04 Nov 2021, Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Javier,
>
>>
>> >>>
>> >>> - if (vgacon_text_force() && i915_modparams.modeset == -1)
>> >>> + ret = drm_drv_enabled(&driver);
>> >>
>> >> You pass the local driver variable here - which looks wrong as this is
>> >> not the same as the driver variable declared in another file.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, Jani mentioned it already. I got confused and thought that the driver
>> variable was also defined in the same compilation unit...
>>
>> Maybe I could squash the following change?
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
>> index b18a250e5d2e..b8f399b76363 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
>> @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@
>> #include "intel_region_ttm.h"
>> #include "vlv_suspend.h"
>>
>> -static const struct drm_driver driver;
>> +const struct drm_driver driver;
> No, variables with such a generic name will clash.
>
> Just add a
> const drm_driver * i915_drm_driver(void)
> {
> return &driver;
> }
>
> And then use this function to access the drm_driver variable.
Agreed on the general principle of exposing interfaces over data.
But... why? I'm still at a loss what problem this solves. We pass
&driver to exactly one place, devm_drm_dev_alloc(), and it's neatly
hidden away.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
