On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 09:58:47AM -0700, Todd Previte wrote:
> On 10/20/2014 10:48 AM, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> >2014-10-09 12:38 GMT-03:00 Todd Previte <tprevite@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >>+/* Displayport compliance testing - PHY pattern testing */
> >>+static uint8_t
> >>+intel_dp_autotest_phy_pattern(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> >>+{
> >>+ uint8_t test_result = DP_TEST_NAK;
> >>+ return test_result;
> >>+}
> >I guess a lot of people would have just made the code return NAK
> >without even defining/calling these functions above.
>
> It came down to two ways of implementing this initial patch. I could have
> NAK'd in the handler and omitted these functions until they were fully
> implemented. Or I could do what I did here, which was to put the skeleton in
> place and add the flesh to bones when ready. To me, this seems to make more
> sense to me because it gets the structure in place and builds on it in
> subsequent patches.
Random drive-by comment: Imo rolling out the scaffolding in this patch
here looks ok. Personally I'd probably have done what Paulo suggested
too. Maybe even with a default switch that just yells with a
DRM_ERROR("Test not yet implement: %i\n", testcode) and then fill things
out step-by-step. But that's kinda a bikeshed ;-)
-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
