On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 05:36:10PM +0300, Yannis Damigos wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/imx-drm/ipuv3-crtc.c b/drivers/staging/imx-drm/ipuv3-crtc.c
> index 720868b..d6657a0 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/imx-drm/ipuv3-crtc.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/imx-drm/ipuv3-crtc.c
> @@ -201,9 +201,10 @@ static int ipu_crtc_mode_set(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
> return ret;
> }
>
> - return ipu_plane_mode_set(ipu_crtc->plane[0], crtc, mode, crtc->primary->fb,
> - 0, 0, mode->hdisplay, mode->vdisplay,
> - x, y, mode->hdisplay, mode->vdisplay);
> + return ipu_plane_mode_set(ipu_crtc->plane[0], crtc, mode,
> + crtc->primary->fb,
> + 0, 0, mode->hdisplay, mode->vdisplay,
> + x, y, mode->hdisplay, mode->vdisplay);
Why change the indentation like this? There is a wisdom which suggests
that it's better to align the arguments with the function call's first
argument, unless there is a strong reason not to. In this case, I can't
see a strong reason to change the indentation to some different style
here.
> }
>
> static void ipu_crtc_handle_pageflip(struct ipu_crtc *ipu_crtc)
> @@ -227,7 +228,8 @@ static irqreturn_t ipu_irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
>
> if (ipu_crtc->newfb) {
> ipu_crtc->newfb = NULL;
> - ipu_plane_set_base(ipu_crtc->plane[0], ipu_crtc->base.primary->fb,
> + ipu_plane_set_base(ipu_crtc->plane[0],
> + ipu_crtc->base.primary->fb,
> ipu_crtc->plane[0]->x, ipu_crtc->plane[0]->y);
What may make better sense here is:
struct ipu_plane *plane = ipu_crtc->plane[0];
ipu_crtc->newfb = NULL;
ipu_plane_set_base(plane, ipu_crtc->base.primary->fb,
plane->x, plane->y);
which to me looks loads nicer.
--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
