On 3/9/22 09:47, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
[snip]
>>>
>>> +static const struct drm_gem_object_funcs drm_gem_shmem_funcs_fbdev = {
>>> + .free = drm_gem_shmem_object_free,
>>> + .print_info = drm_gem_shmem_object_print_info,
>>> + .pin = drm_gem_shmem_object_pin,
>>> + .unpin = drm_gem_shmem_object_unpin,
>>> + .get_sg_table = drm_gem_shmem_object_get_sg_table,
>>> + .vmap = drm_gem_shmem_object_vmap,
>>> + .vunmap = drm_gem_shmem_object_vunmap,
>>> + .mmap = drm_gem_shmem_object_mmap_fbdev,
>>> + .vm_ops = &drm_gem_shmem_vm_ops_fbdev,
>>
>> The drm_gem_shmem_funcs_fbdev is the same than drm_gem_shmem_funcs but
>> .mmap and .vm_ops callbacks. Maybe adding a macro to declare these two
>> struct drm_gem_object_funcs could make easier to maintain it long term ?
>
> I see you point, but I'm undecided about this. Such macros also add some
> amount of obfuscation. I'm not sure if it's worth it for an internal
> constant. And since the fbdev buffer is never exported, we could remove
> some of the callbacks. AFAICT we never call pin, unpin or get_sg_table.
>
Yeah, that's true too. It was just a suggestion, I'm OK with patch as is.
> Best regards
> Thomas
>
>>
--
Best regards,
Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat
