Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx> wrote on Thu [2013-Aug-01 08:44:00 +0300]:
> On 31/07/13 21:56, Etheridge, Darren wrote:
> >>>
> >>> +static int da8xxfb_set_par(struct fb_info *info) {
> >>> + struct da8xx_fb_par *par = info->par;
> >>> + int ret;
> >>> + bool raster = da8xx_fb_is_raster_enabled();
> >>> +
> >>> + if (raster)
> >>> + lcd_disable_raster(true);
> >>> + else
> >>> + lcd_disable_raster(false);
> >>
> >> This looks odd. If raster is enabled, you disable it. And if raster is disabled,
> >> you disable it.
> >
> > I corrected this one in patch 0011 - I agree this code is very confusing.
>
> In patch 11 you add the enum. I wasn't referring to that. My point was
> that even if raster is already disabled,
> lcd_disable_raster(dont-wait-for-framedone) is called.
Agreed and removed, the lcd_disable_raster function does the same
check as da8xx_fb_is_raster_enabled() and the immediately exits if not
enabled so this path of the conditional appears completely redundant.
Darren
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fbdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
