On 10/12/2013 05:41 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:19:19PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 10/07/2013 02:34 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> From: Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Tegra114 TMDS configuration requires a new peak_current field
>>> and the driver current override bit has changed position.
>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/hdmi.c
>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/hdmi.c
>>
>>> static const struct tmds_config tegra2_tmds_config[] = { @@
>>> -223,6 +224,85 @@ static const struct tmds_config
>>> tegra3_tmds_config[] = {
>>
>> Not related to this patch, but those should have been named
>> tegra20_tmds_config[] and tegra30_tmds_config[].
>>
>>> static void tegra_hdmi_setup_tmds(struct tegra_hdmi *hdmi,
>>
>>> - value = tmds->drive_current | DRIVE_CURRENT_FUSE_OVERRIDE; -
>>> tegra_hdmi_writel(hdmi, value,
>>> HDMI_NV_PDISP_SOR_LANE_DRIVE_CURRENT); + if
>>> (of_device_is_compatible(np, "nvidia,tegra114-hdmi")) {
>>
>> Let's not check this at run-time. Instead, host1x_drm_subdevs[]'s
>> .data field should be used to contain either flags or a pointer
>> to a configuration structure, either of which can be directly
>> consulted to determine the properties of the HW in a
>> feature-oriented/semantic way.
>>
>> drivers/gpio/gpio-tegra.c's
>> tegra20_gpio_config/tegra30_gpio_config/tegra_gpio_of_match
>> provide a good example of this.
>>
>> This means that if Tegra124 is identical to Tegra114, yet a
>> hypothetical Tegra999 is different, you don't have to keep
>> adjusting these if conditions throughout the code; they can
>> simply refer to the same feature bit forever.
>
> Okay, I'll see what I can come up with. It's unfortunately not as
> simple as the GPIO driver's parameterization, and who knows what
> other differences will be introduced in some later versions of this
> block.
>
> What I mean is that at some point it becomes questionable whether
> it makes sense to parameterize at all if you have to encode the
> register offset and bit position within that register for a large
> number of bits.
Well, I wasn't advocating that we shouldn't have an if statement at
all. Simply that the if statement shouldn't be doing string compares
of specific HW. Either of the following would be fine:
if (hdmi->soc_data->some_feature_flag)
// just represents some code; doesn't have to be a function call
do_something();
else;
do_something_else();
or:
do_something(hdmi->soc_data->some_feature_value);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
