[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1674301.cQSPGVcRm9@avalon>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 10:05:24 +0300
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
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 Monday 15 May 2017 08:47:49 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> 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 :-)
But the function doesn't validate a mode for a connector, it validates a mode
for a complete pipeline...
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
Powered by blists - more mailing lists