Hi Maxime,
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 21:57, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> drm_format_num_planes() is basically a lookup in the drm_format_info table
> plus an access to the num_planes field of the appropriate entry.
>
> Most drivers are using this function while having access to the entry
> already, which means that we will perform an unnecessary lookup. Removing
> the call to drm_format_num_planes is therefore more efficient.
>
> Some drivers will not have access to that entry in the function, but in
> this case the overhead is minimal (we just have to call drm_format_info()
> to perform the lookup) and we can even avoid multiple, inefficient lookups
> in some places that need multiple fields from the drm_format_info
> structure.
>
I'm not fan of the duplicated loop-ups either.
> -int drm_format_num_planes(uint32_t format)
> -{
> - const struct drm_format_info *info;
> -
> - info = drm_format_info(format);
> - return info ? info->num_planes : 1;
> -}
> -EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_format_num_planes);
> -
The existing users are not updated to cater for the num_planes != 0
case... Which seems non-existent scenario since all the current format
descriptions have 1+ planes.
Should we add a test (alike the ones in 6/20) to ensure, that no entry
has 0 planes? Is it even worth it or I'm a bit too paranoid?
The above comments apply to 2/20.
With the name suggestions by Paul, patches 1 to 5 (incl.) are:
Reviewed-by: Emil Velikov <emil.velikov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
HTH
Emil
