On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 04:42:39PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 03:30:20PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > Since the variable's value is the size of an array, we can assume that
> > it will never be negative.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid_modes.h | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid_modes.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid_modes.h
> > index 5dbf7d2..d65d863 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid_modes.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid_modes.h
> > @@ -771,4 +771,4 @@ static const struct drm_display_mode edid_cea_modes[] = {
> > 2492, 2640, 0, 1080, 1084, 1094, 1125, 0,
> > DRM_MODE_FLAG_PHSYNC | DRM_MODE_FLAG_PVSYNC) },
> > };
> > -static const int drm_num_cea_modes = ARRAY_SIZE(edid_cea_modes);
> > +static const unsigned int drm_num_cea_modes = ARRAY_SIZE(edid_cea_modes);
>
> Why do we even have these num_foo things? I think it would be clearer to
> use ARRAY_SIZE(foo) directly where appropriate.
Actually I was thinking about maybe writing a patch to move the table
out of the header and into drm_edid.c (or drm_cea.c?) to make it less
easy to create duplicates of the table. In that case, using the
ARRAY_SIZE macro directly wouldn't be an option.
Thierry
Attachment:
pgpx_H2ZsN2Vr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
