Thread (2 messages) 2 messages, 2 authors, 2021-01-26

Re: [PATCH v2 08/11] drm: Rename plane->state variables in atomic update and disable

From: Ville Syrjälä <hidden>
Date: 2021-01-26 19:25:40
Also in: dri-devel, linux-amlogic, linux-arm-msm, linux-mediatek, linux-rockchip, linux-samsung-soc, linux-tegra, lkml

Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:52:18AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
Hi Ville,

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 02:15:07PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 05:35:33PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
quoted
Some drivers are storing the plane->state pointer in atomic_update and
atomic_disable in a variable simply called state, while the state passed
as an argument is called old_state.

In order to ease subsequent reworks and to avoid confusing or
inconsistent names, let's rename those variables to new_state.

This was done using the following coccinelle script, plus some manual
changes for mtk and tegra.

@ plane_atomic_func @
identifier helpers;
identifier func;
@@

(
 static const struct drm_plane_helper_funcs helpers = {
 	...,
 	.atomic_disable = func,
	...,
 };
|
 static const struct drm_plane_helper_funcs helpers = {
 	...,
 	.atomic_update = func,
	...,
 };
)

@ moves_new_state_old_state @
identifier plane_atomic_func.func;
identifier plane;
symbol old_state;
symbol state;
@@

 func(struct drm_plane *plane, struct drm_plane_state *old_state)
 {
 	...
-	struct drm_plane_state *state = plane->state;
+	struct drm_plane_state *new_state = plane->state;
	...
 }

@ depends on moves_new_state_old_state @
identifier plane_atomic_func.func;
identifier plane;
identifier old_state;
symbol state;
@@

 func(struct drm_plane *plane, struct drm_plane_state *old_state)
 {
 	<...
-	state
+	new_state
	...>
Was going to say that this migh eat something else, but I guess
the dependency prevents that?
Yeah, the dependency takes care of this
quoted
Another way to avoid that I suppose would be to declare 'state'
as
symbol moves_new_state_old_state.state;

That would probably make the intent a bit more obvious, even with
the dependency. Or does a dependency somehow automagically imply
that?
I'm not sure if it does, but it's a symbol here not an identifier or an
expression, so here moves_new_state_old_state.state would always resolve
to state (and only state) anyway
Hm. Right. OK, cocci bits look good to me. Variable naming
bikeshed I'll leave to others :)

Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <redacted>

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help