On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:45:35AM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > VLV PSR support PSR per pipe, including the status. So we have to check > if it is enabled per pipe on status. > > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > index 82e47da..774eb6c 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > @@ -2076,7 +2076,26 @@ static bool is_edp_psr(struct intel_dp *intel_dp) > return intel_dp->psr_dpcd[0] & DP_PSR_IS_SUPPORTED; > } > > -static bool intel_edp_is_psr_enabled(struct drm_device *dev) > +/** > + * vlv_edp_is_psr_enabled_on_pipe > + * @dev: DRM device > + * @pipe: pipe to check for PSR status. > + * > + * VLV PSR implements PSR per pipe. This function allows to check if it is > + * enabled on given pipe. > + */ It's nice that people now go overboard with kerneldoc, but I think we need to strike a good balance. And in general I think documenting static inline functions isn't worth it - they really should be self-explanatory as-is. Documentation is imo only really useful for the bigger stuff, which usually means it's used in a few places all over. So non-static functions. If you feel like documenting tricky stuff in static functions, then imo that should be done as in-line code comments, where appropriate. -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
