On 4/3/23 09:23, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 09:07:35AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
>> From: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> What does vblank have to do with num_crtcs? Well, this was technically
>> correct, but you'd have to go look at where num_crtcs is initialized to
>> understand why. Lets just replace it with the simpler and more obvious
>> check.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
>> index 877e2067534f..ad34c235d853 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
>> @@ -575,7 +575,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_vblank_init);
>> */
>> bool drm_dev_has_vblank(const struct drm_device *dev)
>> {
>> - return dev->num_crtcs != 0;
>> + return !!dev->vblank;
>
> The compiler knows how to turn things into a boolean.
>> Or I guess if we want to be a bit more explicit we could
> write this as
> return dev->vblank != NULL;
> but IIRC that will make checkpatch complain because of
> someone's personal taste.
checkpatch isn't an absolute thing. :)
--
~Randy
