On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:36:56 -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Thomas Reim <thomas.reim@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_i2c.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_i2c.c
> >> > index 781196d..7e93cf9 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_i2c.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_i2c.c
> >> > @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@
> >> > */
> >> > bool radeon_ddc_probe(struct radeon_connector *radeon_connector)
> >> > {
> >> > - u8 out_buf[] = { 0x0, 0x0};
> >> > + u8 out = 0x0;
> >> > u8 buf[2];
> >> > int ret;
> >> > struct i2c_msg msgs[] = {
> >> > @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ bool radeon_ddc_probe(struct radeon_connector *radeon_connector)
> >> > .addr = 0x50,
> >> > .flags = 0,
> >> > .len = 1,
> >> > - .buf = out_buf,
> >> > + .buf = &out,
> >> > },
> >> > {
> >> > .addr = 0x50,
> >>
> >>
> >> The change above doesn't seem to be related.
> >
> > This was a comment from Jean who complained about the ineffective usage
> > of the i2c bus. But I can also restore the old code. What's your
> > preference?
>
> Ah, I missed that. Let's make that a separate patch, or fix it when
> you add support for the extended edid check.
>
> Thanks for fixing this up.
I'll send a patch for that one, as I found it. It is indeed unrelated
to the problem, I mentioned it only to avoid the same mistake in a
newly added function.
It's a very minor cleanup / optimization, BTW.
--
Jean Delvare
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
