linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] drm/sun4i: Enable DRM InfoFrame support on H6

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGb2v67FF3k9wZu7K+Z5yKFFeh8A_4iuEXfh+tO65UvVRfY-sA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jun 2019 23:56:30 +0800
From:   Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>
To:     Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>
Cc:     Jernej Škrabec <jernej.skrabec@...l.net>,
        Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>,
        "Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com" 
        <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        "narmstrong@...libre.com" <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
        "khilman@...libre.com" <khilman@...libre.com>,
        "zhengyang@...k-chips.com" <zhengyang@...k-chips.com>,
        "maxime.ripard@...tlin.com" <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>,
        "hjc@...k-chips.com" <hjc@...k-chips.com>,
        "heiko@...ech.de" <heiko@...ech.de>,
        "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] drm/sun4i: Enable DRM InfoFrame support on H6

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 11:49 PM Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com> wrote:
>
> On 24.06.2019 17:05, Jernej Škrabec wrote:
> > Dne ponedeljek, 24. junij 2019 ob 17:03:31 CEST je Andrzej Hajda napisal(a):
> >> On 26.05.2019 23:20, Jonas Karlman wrote:
> >>> This patch enables Dynamic Range and Mastering InfoFrame on H6.
> >>>
> >>> Cc: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>
> >>> Cc: Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...l.net>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>>  drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun8i_dw_hdmi.c | 2 ++
> >>>  drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun8i_dw_hdmi.h | 1 +
> >>>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun8i_dw_hdmi.c
> >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun8i_dw_hdmi.c index 39d8509d96a0..b80164dd8ad8
> >>> 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun8i_dw_hdmi.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun8i_dw_hdmi.c
> >>> @@ -189,6 +189,7 @@ static int sun8i_dw_hdmi_bind(struct device *dev,
> >>> struct device *master,>
> >>>     sun8i_hdmi_phy_init(hdmi->phy);
> >>>
> >>>     plat_data->mode_valid = hdmi->quirks->mode_valid;
> >>>
> >>> +   plat_data->drm_infoframe = hdmi->quirks->drm_infoframe;
> >>>
> >>>     sun8i_hdmi_phy_set_ops(hdmi->phy, plat_data);
> >>>
> >>>     platform_set_drvdata(pdev, hdmi);
> >>>
> >>> @@ -255,6 +256,7 @@ static const struct sun8i_dw_hdmi_quirks
> >>> sun8i_a83t_quirks = {>
> >>>  static const struct sun8i_dw_hdmi_quirks sun50i_h6_quirks = {
> >>>
> >>>     .mode_valid = sun8i_dw_hdmi_mode_valid_h6,
> >>>
> >>> +   .drm_infoframe = true,
> >>>
> >>>  };
> >>>
> >>>  static const struct of_device_id sun8i_dw_hdmi_dt_ids[] = {
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun8i_dw_hdmi.h
> >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun8i_dw_hdmi.h index 720c5aa8adc1..2a0ec08ee236
> >>> 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun8i_dw_hdmi.h
> >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun8i_dw_hdmi.h
> >>> @@ -178,6 +178,7 @@ struct sun8i_dw_hdmi_quirks {
> >>>
> >>>     enum drm_mode_status (*mode_valid)(struct drm_connector
> > *connector,
> >>>
> >>>                                        const struct
> > drm_display_mode *mode);
> >>>
> >>>     unsigned int set_rate : 1;
> >>>
> >>> +   unsigned int drm_infoframe : 1;
> >> Again, drm_infoframe suggests it contains inforframe, but in fact it
> >> just informs infoframe can be used, so again my suggestion
> >> use_drm_infoframe.
> >>
> >> Moreover bool type seems more appropriate here.
> > checkpatch will give warning if bool is used.
>
>
> Then I would say "fix/ignore checkpatch" :)
>
> But maybe there is a reason.

Here's an old one from Linus: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/1/154

I'd say that bool in a struct is a waste of space compared to a 1 bit bitfield,
especially when there already are other bitfields in the same struct.

> Anyway I've tested and I do not see the warning, could you elaborate it.

Maybe checkpatch.pl --strict?

ChenYu