W dniu 14.09.2021 o 20:59, Jani Nikula pisze:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2021, Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 11:16 AM Jani Nikula
>> <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 09 Sep 2021, Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> In the patch ("drm/edid: Allow the querying/working with the panel ID
>>>> from the EDID") we introduced a different way of working with the
>>>> panel ID stored in the EDID. Let's use this new way for the quirks
>>>> code.
>>>>
>>>> Advantages of the new style:
>>>> * Smaller data structure size. Saves 4 bytes per panel.
>>>> * Iterate through quirks structure with just "==" instead of strncmp()
>>>> * In-kernel storage is more similar to what's stored in the EDID
>>>> itself making it easier to grok that they are referring to the same
>>>> value.
>>>>
>>>> The quirk table itself is arguably a bit less readable in the new
>>>> style but not a ton less and it feels like the above advantages make
>>>> up for it.
>>> I suppose you could pass vendor as a string to EDID_QUIRK() to retain
>>> better readability?
>> I would love to, but I couldn't figure out how to do this and have it
>> compile! Notably I need the compiler to be able to do math at compile
>> time to compute the final u32 to store in the init data. I don't think
>> the compiler can dereference strings (even constant strings) and do
>> math on the result at compile time.
> Ah, right.
What about:
+#define drm_edid_encode_panel_id(vend, product_id) \
+ ((((u32)((vend)[0]) - '@') & 0x1f) << 26 | \
+ (((u32)((vend)[1]) - '@') & 0x1f) << 21 | \
+ (((u32)((vend)[2]) - '@') & 0x1f) << 16 | \
+ ((product_id) & 0xffff))
Regards
Andrzej
>
>> I _think_ you could make it work with four-character codes (only
>> specifying 3 characters), AKA single-quoting something like 'AUO' but
>> I think four-character codes are not dealt with in a standard enough
>> way between compilers so they're not allowed in Linux.
>>
>> If you like it better, I could do something like this:
>>
>> #define ACR_CODE 'A', 'C', 'R'
>> #define AUO_CODE 'A', 'U', 'O'
>> ...
>> ...
>>
>> ...then I could refer to the #defines...
> Nah.
>
>>
>>> Just bikeshedding, really. ;)
>> I'll take this comment (without any formal tags) as:
>>
>> * You've seen this patch (and the previous ones) and wouldn't object
>> to it merging.
>>
>> * You're not planning on any deeper review / testing, so I shouldn't
>> wait for more stuff from you before merging. Please yell if this is
>> not the case. I'm happy to wait but I don't want to wait if no further
>> review is planned.
> I have now reviewed the ones where my review is relevant, and certainly
> don't expect me to comment on the rest. ;)
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
>>
>> In general I'm still planning to give this series at least another
>> week for comments before merging. ${SUBJECT} patch also is the only
>> one lacking any type of Review / Ack tags so I'll see if I can find
>> someone to give it something before merging, too.
>>
>>
>> -Doug
