On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 12:36:44PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 09 Nov 2022, Nischal Varide <nischal.varide@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > A check on mode->clock to see if is greater than i915->max_dotclk_freq > > or greater than 2 * (i915_max_dotclk_freq) in case of big-joiner and > > return an -EINVAL in both the cases > > The commit message should explain *why* the change is being done. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nischal Varide <nischal.varide@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c | 4 ++++ > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c > > index 7400d6b4c587..813f4c369dda 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c > > @@ -995,6 +995,10 @@ intel_dp_mode_valid(struct drm_connector *_connector, > > bigjoiner = true; > > max_dotclk *= 2; > > } > > + > > + if (mode->clock > max_dotclk) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > The return type of this function is enum drm_mode_status, which > indicates the reason for rejecting the mode. It's not a negative error > code. > > Near the top of the function we have "target_clock = mode->clock;" > making the above identical to the check we already have below. Apart > from the incorrect return code. > > What are you trying to do? > > BR, > Jani. Yes I agree with Jani here that since target_clock is mode->clock we already have that check in place and infact returing MODE_CLOCK_HIGH makes more sense than returning just a -EINVAL What is the purpose of this change? Manasi > > > > if (target_clock > max_dotclk) > > return MODE_CLOCK_HIGH; > > > > > -- > Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
