Hi Emil,
Thanks for the review!
On Mon 04 May 20, 14:28, Emil Velikov wrote:
> Just had a casual quick look for custom KMS properties, since new
> drivers made that mistake in the past.
> Thanks for not including any o/
Yeah I made sure not to include any, I know it easily gets very problematic and
creates disparity between drivers while needing to be kept alive even when a
standard way arises due to the no API breakage policy.
The not-for-merge patch that I've sent does introduce some for the colorkey,
and that's why they are marked as such :)
> I made a couple of trivial suggestions - if you agree, feel free to
> keep them as follow-up patches.
>
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 20:28, Paul Kocialkowski
> <paul.kocialkowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > +int logicvc_of_property_parse_u32(struct device_node *of_node,
> > + const char *name, u32 *target)
> > +{
> > + struct logicvc_of_property *property;
> > + const char *string;
> > + u32 value;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + property = logicvc_of_property_lookup(name);
> > + if (!property)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> One could have the logicvc_of_properties[] entries indexed with the
> logicvc_of_property_parse_{u32,bool} caller, using that instead of the
> name string.
Do I understand correctly that you're suggesting passing each entry's
struct logicvc_of_property pointer to the function?
I went for strings to make the code explicit and easy to read so I'd really
like to keep it that way and avoid passing things like
&logicvc_of_properties[4] or an index integer.
> Aside: I suspect the array (as most other arrays in this patch) should
> be annotated const, correct?
Ah yes that's a good point, thanks!
>
> > + if (property->range[0] || property->range[1])
> > + if (value < property->range[0] || value > property->range[1])
> Combine the two ifs?
Definitely :)
Cheers,
Paul
--
Paul Kocialkowski, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
