On Thu, 2020-01-30 at 19:16 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 05:58:36PM -0800, José Roberto de Souza
> wrote:
> > This is a eDP function and it will always returns true for non-eDP
> > ports.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c | 1 -
> > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
> > index 4074d83b1a5f..a50b5b6dd009 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
> > @@ -7537,7 +7537,6 @@ intel_dp_init_connector(struct
> > intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port,
> >
> > if (!intel_edp_init_connector(intel_dp, intel_connector)) {
> > intel_dp_aux_fini(intel_dp);
> > - intel_dp_mst_encoder_cleanup(intel_dig_port);
>
> This makes the unwind look incomplete to the causual reader. The
> cleanup
> function does both anyway so cross checking is harder if they're not
> consistent. So not sure I like it. Hmm. The ordering of these two
> also
> looks off here.
>
> Maybe nicer to just move the whole onion to the end of function
> (we alredy have one layer there)?
If I need to rework the 4/4 patch I will do that, otherwise I will just
ignore this patch.
Please check my answer to your comment.
>
> > goto fail;
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.25.0
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
