[PATCH v2 08/11] drm: Rename plane->state variables in atomic update and disable

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 05:35:33PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Some drivers are storing the plane->state pointer in atomic_update and
> atomic_disable in a variable simply called state, while the state passed
> as an argument is called old_state.
> 
> In order to ease subsequent reworks and to avoid confusing or
> inconsistent names, let's rename those variables to new_state.
> 
> This was done using the following coccinelle script, plus some manual
> changes for mtk and tegra.
> 
> @ plane_atomic_func @
> identifier helpers;
> identifier func;
> @@
> 
> (
>  static const struct drm_plane_helper_funcs helpers = {
>  	...,
>  	.atomic_disable = func,
> 	...,
>  };
> |
>  static const struct drm_plane_helper_funcs helpers = {
>  	...,
>  	.atomic_update = func,
> 	...,
>  };
> )
> 
> @ moves_new_state_old_state @
> identifier plane_atomic_func.func;
> identifier plane;
> symbol old_state;
> symbol state;
> @@
> 
>  func(struct drm_plane *plane, struct drm_plane_state *old_state)
>  {
>  	...
> -	struct drm_plane_state *state = plane->state;
> +	struct drm_plane_state *new_state = plane->state;
> 	...
>  }
> 
> @ depends on moves_new_state_old_state @
> identifier plane_atomic_func.func;
> identifier plane;
> identifier old_state;
> symbol state;
> @@
> 
>  func(struct drm_plane *plane, struct drm_plane_state *old_state)
>  {
>  	<...
> -	state
> +	new_state
> 	...>

Was going to say that this migh eat something else, but I guess
the dependency prevents that?

Another way to avoid that I suppose would be to declare 'state'
as
symbol moves_new_state_old_state.state;

That would probably make the intent a bit more obvious, even with
the dependency. Or does a dependency somehow automagically imply
that?

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel