On 23.10.2012 18:45, Klaus Schnass wrote:
>> /**
>> + * radeon_check_pot_argument - check that argument is a power of two
>> + *
>> + * @arg: value to check
>> + *
>> + * Validates that a certain argument is a power of two (all asics).
>> + * Returns true if argument is valid.
>> + */
>> +static bool radeon_ckeck_pot_argument(int arg)
>> +{
>> + return (arg & (arg - 1)) == 0;
>> +}
> comment says "check_pot_argument" but is called c_K_eck_pot_argument
Good catch, that's indeed a typo.
>
>> +
>> +/**
>> * radeon_check_arguments - validate module params
>> *
>> * @rdev: radeon_device pointer
>> @@ -845,52 +860,25 @@ static unsigned int radeon_vga_set_decode(void *cookie,
> bool state)
>> static void radeon_check_arguments(struct radeon_device *rdev)
>> {
>> /* vramlimit must be a power of two */
>> - switch (radeon_vram_limit) {
>> - case 0:
>> - case 4:
>> - case 8:
>> - case 16:
>> - case 32:
>> - case 64:
>> - case 128:
>> - case 256:
>> - case 512:
>> - case 1024:
>> - case 2048:
>> - case 4096:
>> - break;
>> - default:
>> + if (!radeon_ckeck_pot_argument(radeon_vram_limit)) {
> check_pot_argument is also true for radeon_vram_limit = 1 and 2 which was
> missing from the previous case statement, was that intentional?
Not really, but I don't see a reason why 1 and 2 MB limits shouldn't
work (if your resolution is low enough).
Christian.
>
> Best regards,
> Klaus
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
>
