On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 01:56:58PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 08:32:16PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote: > > If the user if this API is providing a bigger buffer than the infoframe > > size, it could be for a could reason. For instance it could be because > > it gives the buffer that will be written to the hardware, up to the > > maximum of an infoframe size. > > > > Instead of just zeroing up to the infoframe size, let's zero the whole > > incoming buffer as those extra bytes are also used to compute the > > ECC and need to be 0. > > > > Signed-off-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@xxxxxxxxx> > > One concern that came to mind was someone needing to preserve the buffer > contents beyond the infoframe. But I guess if someone really needs to > do that, they can go and figure out the exact length of the infoframe > and pass that. Right, that was my thinking as well. We even have a macro for that now. -- Damien _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
