On ti, 2016-07-26 at 10:49 -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Joonas Lahtinen
> <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/drm/drm_crtc.h b/include/drm/drm_crtc.h
> > index 3edeaf8..57bbc61 100644
> > --- a/include/drm/drm_crtc.h
> > +++ b/include/drm/drm_crtc.h
> > @@ -84,13 +84,13 @@ static inline uint64_t I642U64(int64_t val)
> > * DRM_REFLECT_Y reflects the image along the specified axis prior to rotation
> > */
> > #define DRM_ROTATE_MASK 0x0f
> > -#define DRM_ROTATE_0 0
> > -#define DRM_ROTATE_90 1
> > -#define DRM_ROTATE_180 2
> > -#define DRM_ROTATE_270 3
> > +#define DRM_ROTATE_0 BIT(0)
> > +#define DRM_ROTATE_90 BIT(1)
> > +#define DRM_ROTATE_180 BIT(2)
> > +#define DRM_ROTATE_270 BIT(3)
> > #define DRM_REFLECT_MASK (~DRM_ROTATE_MASK)
> It's probably a good time to give these masks a little love. Could we
> just generate them (both ROTATE and REFLECT) from the ROTATE and
> REFLECT values now?
I was consider it too, so I think it would be an OK change. Fine with
the patch otherwise? I can send a revised version with that changed.
Regards, Joonas
>
> Sean
>
> >
> > -#define DRM_REFLECT_X 4
> > -#define DRM_REFLECT_Y 5
> > +#define DRM_REFLECT_X BIT(4)
> > +#define DRM_REFLECT_Y BIT(5)
> >
> > enum drm_connector_force {
> > DRM_FORCE_UNSPECIFIED,
> > --
> > 2.5.5
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dri-devel mailing list
> > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
--
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
