On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 12:53:52PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 20 Oct 2021, Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 10:23:14PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Add an assert that lookups from the intel_dp->common_rates[] array > >> > are always valid. > >> > >> The one thought I had here was that if we're adding helper functions for > >> accessing common rates, they should probably be of the form "this is the > >> rate I have now, give me a slower rate" instead of making the index part > >> of the interface. The index doesn't really mean anything, and if we want > >> to avoid overflows, it should be hidden from the interfaces. > > > > intel_dp_rate_index() is also part of the interface, but I suppose it > > could be improved. > > Most of its users could be converted to two functions: > > - is this a valid rate? > - give me a slower rate > > The only place where index is actually needed is the eDP rate select > method. > > Pretty much everywhere I'm starting to prefer passing the actual values > instead of mappings. I think I had an ancient patch along those lines... I guess I'm thinking of this one: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/101471/?series=10354&rev=3 -- Ville Syrjälä Intel
