Won't it make more sense to squash this patch with Patch 01 in this series?
When i was reading Patch 1, I almost was going to comment about
handling the case where we dont find the index..
Regards
Manasi
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 05:59:02PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> We shouldn't silently use the first element if we can't find the rate
> we're looking for. Make rate_to_index() more generally useful, and
> fallback to the first element in the caller, with a big warning.
>
> Cc: Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 13 +++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> index 88c708b07c70..0e200a37b75b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> @@ -1544,9 +1544,9 @@ static int rate_to_index(const int *rates, int len, int rate)
>
> for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
> if (rate == rates[i])
> - break;
> + return i;
>
> - return i;
> + return -1;
> }
>
> int
> @@ -1564,8 +1564,13 @@ 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(intel_dp->sink_rates, intel_dp->num_sink_rates,
> - rate);
> + int i = rate_to_index(intel_dp->sink_rates, intel_dp->num_sink_rates,
> + rate);
> +
> + if (WARN_ON(i < 0))
> + i = 0;
> +
> + return i;
> }
>
> 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
