On 10/24/22 13:19, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> Pull the test for fb_dirty into the caller to avoid extra work
> if no callback has been set. In this case no damage handling is
> required and no damage area needs to be computed. Print a warning
> if the damage worker runs without getting an fb_dirty callback.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx>
> ---
Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@xxxxxxxxxx>
But I've a trivial comment below:
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fb_helper.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fb_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fb_helper.c
> index 836523aef6a27..fbc5c5445fdb0 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fb_helper.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fb_helper.c
> @@ -449,12 +449,13 @@ static int drm_fb_helper_damage_blit(struct drm_fb_helper *fb_helper,
> static void drm_fb_helper_damage_work(struct work_struct *work)
> {
> struct drm_fb_helper *helper = container_of(work, struct drm_fb_helper, damage_work);
> + struct drm_device *dev = helper->dev;
You removed this in patch #15, maybe just leaving it in that patch if you
plan to use it again here?
--
Best regards,
Javier Martinez Canillas
Core Platforms
Red Hat