linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 13/14] drm/msm/dp: drop struct msm_dp_panel

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAA8EJppthF3aVq0T2FmjLRNySP2pW36QnEXoWt5fFAKh+Nmz5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 10:53:38 +0200
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>
Cc: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>, Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>, 
	Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, 
	Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, Paloma Arellano <quic_parellan@...cinc.com>, 
	Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>, Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>, 
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, 
	freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/14] drm/msm/dp: drop struct msm_dp_panel_in

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 at 05:26, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/11/2024 3:41 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > All other submodules pass arguments directly. Drop struct
> > msm_dp_panel_in that is used to wrap dp_panel's submodule args and pass
> > all data to msm_dp_panel_get() directly.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
> > ---
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c |  9 +--------
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_panel.c   | 15 ++++++++-------
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_panel.h   | 10 ++--------
> >   3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> >
>
> Change not necessarily tied to catalog cleanup, and can be sent
> independently IMO.
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
> > index cb02d5d5b404925707c737ed75e9e83fbec34f83..a2cdcdac042d63a59ff71aefcecb7f8b22f01167 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
> > @@ -722,9 +722,6 @@ static int msm_dp_init_sub_modules(struct msm_dp_display_private *dp)
> >   {
> >       int rc = 0;
> >       struct device *dev = &dp->msm_dp_display.pdev->dev;
> > -     struct msm_dp_panel_in panel_in = {
> > -             .dev = dev,
> > -     };
> >       struct phy *phy;
> >
> >       phy = devm_phy_get(dev, "dp");
> > @@ -765,11 +762,7 @@ static int msm_dp_init_sub_modules(struct msm_dp_display_private *dp)
> >               goto error_link;
> >       }
> >
> > -     panel_in.aux = dp->aux;
> > -     panel_in.catalog = dp->catalog;
> > -     panel_in.link = dp->link;
> > -
> > -     dp->panel = msm_dp_panel_get(&panel_in);
> > +     dp->panel = msm_dp_panel_get(dev, dp->aux, dp->link, dp->catalog);
> >       if (IS_ERR(dp->panel)) {
> >               rc = PTR_ERR(dp->panel);
> >               DRM_ERROR("failed to initialize panel, rc = %d\n", rc);
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_panel.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_panel.c
> > index 25869e2ac93aba0bffeddae9f95917d81870d8cb..49bbcde8cf60ac1b297310a50191135d79b092fb 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_panel.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_panel.c
> > @@ -659,25 +659,26 @@ static int msm_dp_panel_parse_dt(struct msm_dp_panel *msm_dp_panel)
> >       return 0;
> >   }
> >
> > -struct msm_dp_panel *msm_dp_panel_get(struct msm_dp_panel_in *in)
> > +struct msm_dp_panel *msm_dp_panel_get(struct device *dev, struct drm_dp_aux *aux,
> > +                           struct msm_dp_link *link, struct msm_dp_catalog *catalog)
> >   {
>
> so this API, takes a filled input panel, makes a msm_dp_panel out of it
> by filling out more information on top of what was already passed in and
> returns a msm_dp_panel.
>
> So IOW, converts a msm_dp_panel_in to msm_dp_panel.
>
> What is the gain by passing individual params rather than passing them
> as a struct instead? Isnt it better to have it within that struct to
> show the conversion and moreover we dont have to pass in 4 arguments
> instead of 1.

We gain uniformity. All other modules use params. And, as pointed out
by Maxime during HDMI Codec reviews, it's easier to handle function
params - it makes it more obvious that one of the params got missing.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry