On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 01:10:33PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 17-04-2019 om 13:01 schreef Maxime Ripard:
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 12:47:48PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> >>> +/**
> >>> + * drm_format_info_plane_width - width of the plane given the first plane
> >>> + * @format: pixel format info
> >>> + * @width: width of the first plane
> >>> + * @plane: plane index
> >>> + *
> >>> + * Returns:
> >>> + * The width of @plane, given that the width of the first plane is @width.
> >>> + */
> >>> +static inline
> >>> +int drm_format_info_plane_width(const struct drm_format_info *info, int width,
> >>> + int plane)
> >>> +{
> >>> + if (!info || plane >= info->num_planes)
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (plane == 0)
> >>> + return width;
> >>> +
> >>> + return width / info->hsub;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +/**
> >>> + * drm_format_info_plane_height - height of the plane given the first plane
> >>> + * @format: pixel format info
> >>> + * @height: height of the first plane
> >>> + * @plane: plane index
> >>> + *
> >>> + * Returns:
> >>> + * The height of @plane, given that the height of the first plane is @height.
> >>> + */
> >>> +static inline
> >>> +int drm_format_info_plane_height(const struct drm_format_info *info, int height,
> >>> + int plane)
> >>> +{
> >>> + if (!info || plane >= info->num_planes)
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (plane == 0)
> >>> + return height;
> >>> +
> >>> + return height / info->vsub;
> >>> +}
> >> Why the null checks? None of the other inlines for drm_format_info
> >> perform them.
> > Unless I'm mistaken, the subsampling only applies to the planes with
> > the chrominance, which are always >= 1. Therefore the plane 0 is
> > always the luminance, to which the subsampling doesn't apply.
> >
> > Or are you talking about something else?
>
>
> The info == NULL check. :)
Aaah, sorry :)
That's true, and that's actually the first four patches that change
that behaviour a bit. Previously, drm_format_plane_cpp, _width, and
_height will do the lookup themselves using drm_format_info, and test
whether the pointer returned is null or not.
Patches 3 and 4 removed that lookup but kept the null pointer check.
We could remove it, but there's two downsides for that:
* since the lookup is now effectively pushed to the caller (or the
caller's caller), we would have to check there that the pointer isn't
NULL. That's a lot of boilerplate to add.
* And since this is a generic function, I wouldn't trust the caller
to give a pointer that can be dereferenced right away. This might
be more subjective though.
So I guess we should make sure that we are consistent, but I'd be in
favor of putting that check in all the functions.
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
