On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 04:45:56PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 06:19:09PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote: > > Just like: > > > > Author: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Mon Aug 12 11:53:24 2013 +0100 > > > > video/hdmi: Don't let the user of this API create invalid infoframes > > > > But this time for the horizontal/vertical bar data present bits. > > > > Signed-off-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@xxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/video/hdmi.c | 5 +++-- > > include/linux/hdmi.h | 2 -- > > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > Same comments as for patch 5. Although I begin to see some sense in > this. Perhaps not exposing these boolean fields is a good idea after > all. I wonder if we're excluding some particular use-case by not > exposing these fields. Right, so I included patch 5/6 to the v4 of the series, putting preventing someone from generating invalid infoframes before the hypothetical use-case where we want the detail of the fields. We are, de-facto, excluding the case where we'd want to have _unpack() variants decoding infoframes, but that would only be useful if we wanted to check the validity of infoframes in the kernel for instance. I think it's unlikely we'd like to do that. It's also straightforward to revert the 2 patches if/when that happens. -- Damien _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
