On Tue, 21 May 2024, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 12:51:03PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Mon, 20 May 2024, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 01:47:34PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> >> On Fri, 17 May 2024, Ville Syrjala <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> > >> >> > Extract a helper to check whether the source+sink combo >> >> > supports DSC. That basic check is needed both during mode >> >> > validation and compute config. We'll also need to add extra >> >> > checks to both places, so having a single place for it is nicer. >> >> > >> >> > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> > --- >> >> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c | 16 ++++++++++++++-- >> >> > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> > >> >> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c >> >> > index 1e88449fe5f2..7bf283b4df7f 100644 >> >> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c >> >> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c >> >> > @@ -1220,6 +1220,19 @@ bool intel_dp_need_bigjoiner(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, >> >> > connector->force_bigjoiner_enable; >> >> > } >> >> > >> >> > +static bool intel_dp_has_dsc(struct intel_connector *connector) >> >> >> >> Why not const? >> > >> > We've generally not consted these things. And then whenver add >> > one const somewhere it usually ends up getting in the way later, >> > not because we need mutability but simply because we want to >> > call something that doesn't have the const. >> > >> > I suppose if we do want to start consting things more we should >> > just do some kind of bigger pass over the whole codebase so that >> > that there's less chance of pain later. >> > >> > We're also not using container_of_const() for these right now, >> > so the const can vanish semi-accidentally when casting things. >> > >> > I suppose this thing might be low level enough that the const >> > could be kept. I'll have another think about it. >> >> It's just that this series drops a bunch of const because of this, which >> feels like the opposite of what you usually do. :) > > I suppose. > > My current rule of thumb is: > - atomic object states and fbs should be const if possible > - everything else is not > > I wouldn't mind making more things const, but I suspect > there are several sizeable rabbit holes that need to be > dug out beforehand. Fair enough. Like I said, the series is R-b. J. -- Jani Nikula, Intel
