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/ |
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
