On 30 March 2016 at 10:51, Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch wrote:
No need to confuse userspace like this.
Cc: Gerd Hoffmann kraxel@redhat.com Cc: Dave Airlie airlied@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@intel.com
drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_display.c | 9 --------- 1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_display.c index 4854dac87e24..12b72e29678a 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_display.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_display.c @@ -38,13 +38,6 @@ #define XRES_MAX 8192 #define YRES_MAX 8192
-static void virtio_gpu_crtc_gamma_set(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
u16 *red, u16 *green, u16 *blue,uint32_t start, uint32_t size)-{
/* TODO */-}
static void virtio_gpu_hide_cursor(struct virtio_gpu_device *vgdev, struct virtio_gpu_output *output) @@ -173,7 +166,6 @@ static int virtio_gpu_page_flip(struct drm_crtc *crtc, static const struct drm_crtc_funcs virtio_gpu_crtc_funcs = { .cursor_set2 = virtio_gpu_crtc_cursor_set, .cursor_move = virtio_gpu_crtc_cursor_move,
.gamma_set = virtio_gpu_crtc_gamma_set, .set_config = drm_atomic_helper_set_config, .destroy = drm_crtc_cleanup,@@ -416,7 +408,6 @@ static int vgdev_output_init(struct virtio_gpu_device *vgdev, int index) return PTR_ERR(plane); drm_crtc_init_with_planes(dev, crtc, plane, NULL, &virtio_gpu_crtc_funcs, NULL);
drm_mode_crtc_set_gamma_size(crtc, 256); drm_crtc_helper_add(crtc, &virtio_gpu_crtc_helper_funcs); plane->crtc = crtc;
Out of curiosity:
Coccinelle should be able to handle/generate such patches, shouldn't it ? I believe in the past people used it for similar refactoring/cleanups, yet not (m)any of them [the cocci files] got checked in the kernel tree.
Thinking about future drivers derived from outdated sources - do you think it's a good/bad idea to check/run them along side the existing ones ?
-Emil