On Wed, 21 Aug 2024, Gustavo Sousa <gustavo.sousa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Quoting Jani Nikula (2024-08-21 06:50:36-03:00)
>>+ if (revision < size && map[revision] != STEP_NONE) {
>>+ step = map[revision];
>>+ } else {
>>+ drm_warn(display->drm, "Unknown revision 0x%02x\n", revision);
>>+
>>+ /*
>>+ * If we hit a gap in the revision to step map, use the information
>>+ * for the next revision.
>>+ *
>>+ * This may be wrong in all sorts of ways, especially if the
>>+ * steppings in the array are not monotonically increasing, but
>>+ * it's better than defaulting to 0.
>>+ */
>>+ while (revision < size && map[revision] == STEP_NONE)
>>+ revision++;
>>+
>>+ if (revision < size) {
>>+ drm_dbg_kms(display->drm, "Using display stepping for revision 0x%02x\n",
>>+ revision);
>>+ step = map[revision];
>>+ } else {
>>+ drm_dbg_kms(display->drm, "Using future display stepping\n");
>>+ step = STEP_FUTURE;
>>+ }
>>+ }
>>+
>>+ drm_WARN_ON(display->drm, step == STEP_NONE);
>
> I believe we can be sure that step != STEP_NONE at this point. Are we
> keeping this only to guard against bugs from future changes?
Belt and suspenders, just making sure I didn't screw up anything. :)
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel
