On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 11:25:33AM -0300, Arthur Grillo wrote: > The drm_rect_intersect() already returns if the intersection is visible > or not, so the use of drm_rect_visible() is duplicate. > > Signed-off-by: Arthur Grillo <arthurgri...@riseup.net> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_overlay.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_overlay.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_overlay.c > index c12bdca8da9b..444d88f418c5 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_overlay.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_overlay.c > @@ -966,9 +966,8 @@ static int check_overlay_dst(struct intel_overlay > *overlay, > rec->dst_width, rec->dst_height); > > clipped = req; > - drm_rect_intersect(&clipped, &crtc_state->pipe_src); > > - if (!drm_rect_visible(&clipped) || > + if (!drm_rect_intersect(&clipped, &crtc_state->pipe_src) || > !drm_rect_equals(&clipped, &req))
Hmm. I think I like the original a bit better because there is no hard to spot dependency between the two sides of the ||. I suppose another option would to to replace the || with two separate if statements. > return -EINVAL; > > -- > 2.39.2 -- Ville Syrjälä Intel
