On 23/02/16 17:26, Jyri Sarha wrote: >> You didn't comment on why this is not an error? Why should the driver >> continue even if crtc->port is missing? >> > > At least for the time being if the drm_of_find_possible_crtcs() fails > the tda998x driver assumes the first crtc with a warning. So for that > part everything will work just fine still. > > Then it is another question how priv->is_componentized could be set and > probing has gotten this far while there is no port node to be found. The > WARN_ON() should really never happen as long as the code is the way it > currently is. Ok. But I think it's either ok to not have crtc->port, and in that case no print is needed, or it's not ok, and it's better to print an error and fail. Now it's kind of vague: the driver continues without crtc->port, but gives a scary WARN. Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
