On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 12:17:28PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 02:10:46PM +0200, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > + if (!check_digital_port_conflicts(dev)) {
>
> Being picky:
>
> if not check digital port for conflicts, report error.
>
> It reads backwards. Perhaps
>
> if (conflicting_digital_port_config(dev)) return -EINVAL;
>
> > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("rejecting conflicting digital port configuration\n");
> > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> > + }
>
> Regarding getting more information back to the user about the error
> message, we could with have a connector/crtc property, a procfs file or
> an ioctl to grab a string describing the last error. A LastError
> property blob might be the most convenient. Though I am not sure how
> outlandish this idea is.
It's an unsolved problem since right now we don't tell anyone ever why
something doesn't work. The current solution is the check-only mode of
atomic where you can quickly go through a bunch of options and then pick
the most suitable using heuristics (either user picking what he likes or
in the code).
Queued for -next, thanks for the patch.
-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
