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. 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/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature