On Fri, 09 Aug 2024, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks a lot for the bugfix.
>
> Am 09.08.24 um 14:33 schrieb Dan Carpenter:
>> The test for "Link training failed" expect the loop to exit with "i"
>> set to zero but it exits when "i" is set to -1. Change this from a
>> post-op to a pre-op so that it exits with "i" set to zero. This
>> changes the number of iterations from 10 to 9 but probably that's
>> okay.
>
> Yes, that's ok.
>
>>
>> Fixes: 2281475168d2 ("drm/ast: astdp: Perform link training during atomic_enable")
>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_dp.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_dp.c
>> index 5d07678b502c..4329ab680f62 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_dp.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_dp.c
>> @@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ void ast_dp_link_training(struct ast_device *ast)
>> struct drm_device *dev = &ast->base;
>> unsigned int i = 10;
>>
>> - while (i--) {
>> + while (--i) {
>
> If this loop ever starts with i = 0, it would break again. Can we use
>
> while (i) {
> --i;
> ...
> }
>
> instead?
FWIW, I personally *always* use for loops when there isn't a compelling
reason to do otherwise. You know at a glance that
for (i = 0; i < N; i++)
gets run N times and what i is going to be afterwards.
Sure, you may have to restructure other things, but I think it's almost
always worth it.
BR,
Jani.
>
> Best regards
> Thomas
>
>> u8 vgacrdc = ast_get_index_reg(ast, AST_IO_VGACRI, 0xdc);
>>
>> if (vgacrdc & AST_IO_VGACRDC_LINK_SUCCESS)
--
Jani Nikula, Intel
