On Tue, 23 Sept 2025 at 10:57, Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinch...@ideasonboard.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 10:55:20AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > On 9/23/25 8:47 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > >> @@ -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.
Exactly. And you would no longer need the dsibpp local variable. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds