On Wed, 2017-11-01 at 17:26 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Nov 2017, Mika Kahola <mika.kahola@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > To make looping through transcoders in intel_ddi.c more generic,
> > let's switch
> > to use 'for_each_pipe()' macro to do this.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mika Kahola <mika.kahola@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c
> > index ace674c..3df991b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c
> > @@ -1717,7 +1717,7 @@ bool intel_ddi_get_hw_state(struct
> > intel_encoder *encoder,
> > goto out;
> > }
> >
> > - for (i = TRANSCODER_A; i <= TRANSCODER_C; i++) {
> > + for_each_pipe(dev_priv, i) {
> It gives me an uneasy feeling to conflate pipes and transcoders like
> this. I think we've tried to be more clear about the distinction
> elsewhere.
I had a same kind of feeling myself. First, I was thinking of creating
a new macro like for_each_transcoder() which would indicate that now we
are dealing with transcoders instead of pipes. Maybe going to that
direction here?
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
> >
> > tmp = I915_READ(TRANS_DDI_FUNC_CTL(i));
> >
> > if ((tmp & TRANS_DDI_PORT_MASK) ==
> > TRANS_DDI_SELECT_PORT(port)) {
--
Mika Kahola - Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
