On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 03:35:44PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 05:31:42PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 03:17:15PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> > > Sorry to be such a bore but:
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 07:33:59PM +0530, Shobhit Kumar wrote:
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dsi.c
> > > > @@ -660,6 +660,10 @@ bool intel_dsi_init(struct drm_device *dev)
> > > >
> > > > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("\n");
> > > >
> > > > + /* There is no detection method for MIPI so rely on VBT */
> > > > + if (!dev_priv->vbt.has_mipi)
> > > > + return false;
> > > > +
> > >
> > > Huum, if we can intel_dsi_init() on VLV, but we don't have a MIPI panel,
> > > shouldn't return true here? ie. "intel_dsi_init() was successful, we
> > > just don't have a MIPI panel.
> >
> > Why does it even have a return value? Either it added the
> > connector and encoder or it didn't.
>
> That's even better. I guess we can have a patch on top once this one has
> landed.
dp_init has this since edp init can fail and that decides what we will do
with it occasionally. But that's about it wrt reasons for a return value
for a encoder init function. Please remove.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
