On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 02:16:13PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 01:36:17PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 05:47:25PM +0530, sonika.jindal@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > /* Start the training iterating through available voltages and emphasis,
> > > * testing each value twice. */
> > > - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(hsw_ddi_buf_ctl_values) * 2; i++) {
> > > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(hsw_ddi_translations_fdi); i++) {
> >
> > This is correct but obsfucated. You're actually doing
> > ARRAY_SIZE(hsw_ddi_translations_fdi) / 2 * 2 and we might as well give
> > the ARRAY_SIZE(hsw_ddi_translations_fdi) / 2 a proper name like I
> > suggested.
>
> I've been wondering why we don't have something like:
>
> struct ddi_buf_trans {
> u32 deemp;
> u32 vswing;
> }
>
> and use that instead of having the magic /2 appear in places.
Yes, this is something we've discussed in a separate thread with Jani as
well and that'd be indeed even better. Someone wants to sign up for
that?
--
Damien
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
