On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 10:29:24AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Jani, >> > >> > Should I just hold on to this until your patch series >> > gets merged so I can rebase this on top of it? >> >> I think I'd prefer that, especially so because I'm not sure that this >> patch does the right thing. Yes, this checks that the values are within >> bounds, but that they are within bounds doesn't make them any more valid >> for the current link if they are indeed stale! > > Can they be stale and still be within the bounds somehow? Maybe not. Maybe I just don't follow. Perhaps the commit message deserves a better description of the cases where we hit the case. >> >> +static bool intel_dp_link_params_is_valid(struct intel_dp *intel_dp) Side note, it bugs me that the function name has a grammatical error. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
