On Thu, 2017-09-14 at 15:36 -0700, Ausmus, James wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Dhinakaran Pandiyan
> <dhinakaran.pandiyan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > intel_dp_can_mst() performs these checks.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 6 ------
> > 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > index 644463ba313e..a4465b46bb27 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > @@ -3845,12 +3845,6 @@ intel_dp_can_mst(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> > static void
> > intel_dp_configure_mst(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> > {
> > - if (!i915.enable_dp_mst)
> > - return;
> > -
> > - if (!intel_dp->can_mst)
> > - return;
> > -
>
> By dropping these returns, we will now always get DRM_DEBUG_KMS output
> on whether the sink is MST capable, even if the i915.enable_dp_mst
> param is false
You are right, that debug msg is unnecessary.
> - maybe drop these from intel_dp_can_mst instead?
>
Those checks are needed by the other caller - intel_detect_dpcd()
On second thought, the early returns are indeed useful. Thanks for the
review.
> > intel_dp->is_mst = intel_dp_can_mst(intel_dp);
> >
> > if (intel_dp->is_mst)
> > --
> > 2.11.0
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
