On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 06:02:50PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> > > Our code makes a lot of assumptions regarding what each DDI port > actually supports, and the VBT should tell us what is really happening > in the hardware. So parse the information provided by the VBT and > check if any of our assumptions is wrong. > > Our driver also has a history of not really trusting the VBT, so a > WARN here could mean that: > a) our coding assumptions are wrong > b) the VBT is wrong > c) we're incorrectly parsing the VBT > d) the checks are wrong > > But I really hope we won't ever trigger any of those WARNs. > > v2: Don't check the redundant "Capabilities" field from byte 24 since > it doesn't seem to be used. > v3: Rebase > > Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> (v2) I have the same issue with these WARN - single callsite, no need for disambiguation, and things we need to handle rather than bamboozle the user. (Or if we can't, *ERROR* when it all goes wrong.) -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
