On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 05:58:36PM -0800, José Roberto de Souza wrote:
> This is a eDP function and it will always returns true for non-eDP
> ports.
>
> Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
> index 4074d83b1a5f..a50b5b6dd009 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
> @@ -7537,7 +7537,6 @@ intel_dp_init_connector(struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port,
>
> if (!intel_edp_init_connector(intel_dp, intel_connector)) {
> intel_dp_aux_fini(intel_dp);
> - intel_dp_mst_encoder_cleanup(intel_dig_port);
This makes the unwind look incomplete to the causual reader. The cleanup
function does both anyway so cross checking is harder if they're not
consistent. So not sure I like it. Hmm. The ordering of these two also
looks off here.
Maybe nicer to just move the whole onion to the end of function
(we alredy have one layer there)?
> goto fail;
> }
>
> --
> 2.25.0
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
