[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170515064748.25pk2bkdl3q6zg75@phenom.ffwll.local>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 08:47:49 +0200
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc: Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@...opsys.com>,
Carlos Palminha <CARLOS.PALMINHA@...opsys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] drm: Use new mode_valid() helpers in connector
probe helper
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 02:04:24PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Friday 12 May 2017 17:06:14 Jose Abreu wrote:
> > On 12-05-2017 10:35, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 09 May 2017 18:00:12 Jose Abreu wrote:
> > >> + if (mode->status == MODE_OK)
> > >> + mode->status = drm_mode_validate_connector(connector,
> > >>
> > >> mode);
> > >
> > > I would reverse the arguments order to match the style of the other
> > > validation functions.
> >
> > Hmm, I think it makes more sense to pass connector first and then
> > mode ...
>
> I disagree, as this function validates a mode against a pipeline, the same way
> the other validation functions validate a mode against other parameters, but
> it's your patch :-)
Call it drm_connector_validate_mode, because the first argument is
generally the object we operate on :-)
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
Powered by blists - more mailing lists