I can't think of a real world bug this could cause now, but this will be
required in follow-up work. While at it, change the parameter order to
be slightly more sensible.
Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 11 ++++++-----
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
index e80d620846c8..af3c3854a432 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
@@ -1540,12 +1540,12 @@ bool intel_dp_read_desc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
return true;
}
-static int rate_to_index(int find, const int *rates)
+static int rate_to_index(const int *rates, int len, int rate)
{
- int i = 0;
+ int i;
- for (i = 0; i < DP_MAX_SUPPORTED_RATES; ++i)
- if (find == rates[i])
+ for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
+ if (rate == rates[i])
break;
return i;
@@ -1566,7 +1566,8 @@ intel_dp_max_link_rate(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
int intel_dp_rate_select(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, int rate)
{
- return rate_to_index(rate, intel_dp->sink_rates);
+ return rate_to_index(intel_dp->sink_rates, intel_dp->num_sink_rates,
+ rate);
}
void intel_dp_compute_rate(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, int port_clock,
--
2.1.4
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
