On to, 2016-04-07 at 11:00 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > On 07/04/16 08:58, Jani Nikula wrote: > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > > index da0c3d29fda8..0890e71db188 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > > @@ -3799,6 +3799,9 @@ intel_dp_get_dpcd(struct intel_dp *intel_dp) > > */ > > intel_dp->sink_count = DP_GET_SINK_COUNT(intel_dp->sink_count); > > > > + if (is_edp(intel_dp)) > > + intel_dp->sink_count = max(intel_dp->sink_count, 1); It should be max(intel_dp->sink_count, (u8)1) Which is essentially the same as max_t(u8, ...) > > + > > /* > > * SINK_COUNT == 0 and DOWNSTREAM_PORT_PRESENT == 1 implies that > > * a dongle is present but no display. Unless we require to know > FWIW this patch fixes it on my BDW RVP. > > I just had to change it to max_t since max has an issue with taking an > address of const 1 by the look of it. The problem is differing types, taking address of a constant is not a problem, differing types when comparing pointers is. The whole address taking line in max macro is there to make the pointer type comparison at compile time. Regards, joonas > > Regards, > > Tvrtko > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Joonas Lahtinen Open Source Technology Center Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
