On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 10:21:37AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 10/05/2012 10:16 AM, Steffen Trumtrar wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 12:47:16PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> On 10/04/2012 11:59 AM, Steffen Trumtrar wrote:
> ...
> >>> + for_each_child_of_node(timings_np, entry) {
> >>> + struct signal_timing *st;
> >>> +
> >>> + st = of_get_display_timing(entry);
> >>> +
> >>> + if (!st)
> >>> + continue;
> >>
> >> I wonder if that shouldn't be an error?
> >
> > In the sense of a pr_err not a -EINVAL I presume?! It is a little bit quiet in
> > case of a faulty spec, that is right.
>
> I did mean return an error; if we try to parse something and can't,
> shouldn't we return an error?
>
> I suppose it may be possible to limp on and use whatever subset of modes
> could be parsed and drop the others, which is what this code does, but
> the code after the loop would definitely return an error if zero timings
> were parseable.
If a display supports multiple modes, I think it is better to have a working
mode (even if it is not the preferred one) than have none at all.
If there is no mode at all, that should be an error, right.
Regards,
Steffen
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
