On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 10:55:20AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 9/23/25 8:47 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> Hello Geert,
>
> >> @@ -457,11 +458,11 @@ static void rcar_mipi_dsi_set_display_timing(struct
> >> rcar_mipi_dsi *dsi,
> >> u32 vprmset4r;
> >>
> >> /* Configuration for Pixel Stream and Packet Header */
> >> - if (mipi_dsi_pixel_format_to_bpp(dsi->format) == 24)
> >> + if (dsibpp == 24)
> >> rcar_mipi_dsi_write(dsi, TXVMPSPHSETR,
> >> TXVMPSPHSETR_DT_RGB24);
> >> - else if (mipi_dsi_pixel_format_to_bpp(dsi->format) == 18)
> >> + else if (dsibpp == 18)
> >> rcar_mipi_dsi_write(dsi, TXVMPSPHSETR,
> >> TXVMPSPHSETR_DT_RGB18);
> >> - else if (mipi_dsi_pixel_format_to_bpp(dsi->format) == 16)
> >> + else if (dsibpp == 16)
> >
> > What about using the switch() statement instead?
>
> Not for single-line bodies in the conditionals. The switch {} statement
> would require additional break; in each case and that's not worth it
> here, it would only add noise into the code.
I'm a bit surprised. I don't mind much as I don't work on this driver
myself, but for what it's worth I would find a switch statement to be
more readable too. Coding style is of course a matter of personal
preference in many cases.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
