Hi Laurent,
On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 8:50 PM Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinch...@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 07:55:22PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 6:50 PM Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 11:21:36AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > Unify primary and overlay plane allocation:
> > > > - Enhance shmob_drm_plane_create() so it can be used to create the
> > > > primary plane, too,
> > > > - Move overlay plane creation next to primary plane creation.
> > > >
> > > > As overlay plane index zero now means the primary plane, this requires
> > > > shifting all overlay plane indices by one.
> > >
> > > Do you use index zero to identify the primary plane just for
> > > shmob_drm_plane_create(), or somewhere else too ? If it's just to create
> > > the plane, you could instead pass the plane type to the function.
> >
> > Index zero is just used for the creation.
> > I guess this sort of goes together with my question below...
> >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+rene...@glider.be>
> > > > ---
> > > > Perhaps it would be better to not use dynamic allocation, but store
> > > > "struct drm_plane primary" and "struct shmob_drm_plane planes[5]" in
> > > > struct drm_shmob_device instead, like is done for the crtc and encoder?
> >
> > ... as embedding separate primary and planes[] would also get rid of
> > the need to adjust the plane indices when converting from logical to
> > physical
> > overlay plane indices.
>
> Do they need to be embedded for that, or could you simple keep the index
> as it is ?
If the plane type would be passed explicitly, they would not need to be
embedded for that.
Then the question becomes: does it make sense to unify primary and
overlay plane handling?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
