On Tuesday, 26 November 2019 19:24:45 GMT Sam Ravnborg wrote:
Hi Mihail.
Hi Sam,
Ack, but with one caveat: bridge->dev is the struct drm_device that is the bridge client, we need to add a bridge->device (patch 29 in this series) which is the struct device that will manage the bridge lifetime.
Other places uses the variable name "drm" for a drm_device. This is less confusion than the "dev" name.
It seems a recent trend to use the variable name "drm" so you can find a lot of places using "dev".
bike-shedding - but also about readability.
Sam
I'm okay with the idea, I can do a follow-up patch or series for the rename; I expect it would be a bit hefty to do it prior to this.
@Daniel, thoughts on s/bridge.dev/bridge.drm/ and s/bridge.device/bridge.dev/ after this series?