On tis, 2015-10-27 at 17:31 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:49:49PM +0100, Robert Fekete wrote:
> > +static const char *plane_rotation(unsigned int rotation)
> > +{
> > + static char buf[48];
> > + /*
> > + * According to doc only one DRM_ROTATE_ is allowed but this
> > + * will print them all to visualize if the values are misused
> > + */
> > + snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf),
> > + "%s%s%s%s%s%s(0x%08x)",
> > + (rotation & BIT(DRM_ROTATE_0)) ? "0 " : "",
> > + (rotation & BIT(DRM_ROTATE_90)) ? "90 " : "",
> > + (rotation & BIT(DRM_ROTATE_180)) ? "180 " : "",
> > + (rotation & BIT(DRM_ROTATE_270)) ? "270 " : "",
> > + (rotation & BIT(DRM_REFLECT_X)) ? "FLIPX " : "",
> > + (rotation & BIT(DRM_REFLECT_Y)) ? "FLIPY " : "",
> > + rotation);
>
> I'd do it the other away around "%x (%s...%s)", the number is the one we
> all know and love, and the human readable translation second.
I fully agree but this is printed right after drm_get_format_name() in
drm_crtc.c which in turn prints it like "%s%s..(%x)" so in order to make
it look consistent I went for this solution instead. Is it acceptable to
keep for consistency or do you still want me to change it?
BR
/R
> -Chris
>
--
BR
/Robert Fekete
Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
