[Freedreno] [PATCH RFC v1 00/52] drm/crtc: Rename struct drm_crtc::dev to drm_dev

[Uwe Kleine-König]

On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:41:45AM -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 9:04 AM Uwe Kleine-König
> > But even with the one-patch-per-rename approach I'd consider the
> > renaming a net win, because ease of understanding code has a big value.
> > It's value is not so easy measurable as "conflicts when backporting",
> > but it also matters in say two years from now, while backporting
> > shouldn't be an issue then any more.
> 
> You've rightly identified the conjecture in your statement. I've been
> on both sides of the argument, having written/maintained drm code
> upstream and cherry-picked changes to a downstream kernel. Perhaps
> it's because drm's definition of dev is ingrained in my muscle memory,
> or maybe it's because I don't do a lot of upstream development these
> days, but I just have a hard time seeing the benefit here.

I see that my change doesn't immediately benefit those who are already
at home in drivers/gpu/drm. So it's quite understandable that someone in
a senior role (long time contributor or maintainer) doesn't see a big
upside.

In contrast I think my change (with its indisputable cost) lowers the
bar for new contributors to drm. IMHO that's something a maintainer has
to have on their radar, too, and that's easily undervalued in my
experience.

Of course in the end it's about weighting the ups and downs. 

Thanks
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mediatek/attachments/20230713/e537c498/attachment-0001.sig>