On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 07:28:14PM -0700, Stéphane Marchesin wrote: >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Ville Syrjälä >> <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 10:26:36AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: >> > > El Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 02:56:05PM -0700 Matthias Kaehlcke ha dit: >> > > >> > > > In several instances the driver passes an 'enum pipe' value to a >> > > > function expecting an 'enum transcoder' and viceversa. Since PIPE_x and >> > > > TRANSCODER_x have the same values this doesn't cause functional >> > > > problems. Still it is incorrect and causes clang to generate warnings >> > > > like this: >> > > > >> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c:1844:34: warning: implicit >> > > > conversion from enumeration type 'enum transcoder' to different >> > > > enumeration type 'enum pipe' [-Wenum-conversion] >> > > > assert_fdi_rx_enabled(dev_priv, TRANSCODER_A); >> > > > >> > > > Change the code to pass values of the type expected by the callee. >> > > > >> > > > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > > > --- >> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 4 ++-- >> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 6 ++++-- >> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdmi.c | 6 ++++-- >> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sdvo.c | 6 ++++-- >> > > > 4 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> > > >> > > Ping, any comments on this patch? >> > >> > I'm not convinced the patch is making things any better really. To >> > fix this really properly, I think we'd need to introduce a new enum >> > pch_transcoder and thus avoid the confusion of which type of >> > transcoder we're talking about. Currently most places expect an >> > enum pipe when dealing with PCH transcoders, and enum transcoder >> > when dealing with CPU transcoders. But there are some exceptions >> > of course. >> >> >> I don't follow -- these functions take an enum transcoder; what's >> wrong about passing what they expect? It seems like what you are >> asking for has nothing to do with the warning here... > > There's a warning? I don't get any. Yup, clang generates a warning. > > Anyways, I just don't see much point in blindly changing the types > because it doesn't actually solve the underlying confusion for human > readers. It might even make it worse, not sure. The function expects type A, you pass type B, how can that ever be the right thing to do? Stéphane > > -- > Ville Syrjälä > Intel OTC _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
