Looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: <manasi.d.nav...@intel.com>
Manasi
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 05:59:01PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> I can't think of a real world bug this could cause now, but this will be
> required in follow-up work. While at it, change the parameter order to
> be slightly more sensible.
>
> Cc: Manasi Navare <manasi.d.nav...@intel.com>
> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nik...@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 11 ++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> index fd96a6cf7326..88c708b07c70 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> @@ -1538,12 +1538,12 @@ bool intel_dp_read_desc(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> return true;
> }
>
> -static int rate_to_index(int find, const int *rates)
> +static int rate_to_index(const int *rates, int len, int rate)
> {
> - int i = 0;
> + int i;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < DP_MAX_SUPPORTED_RATES; ++i)
> - if (find == rates[i])
> + for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
> + if (rate == rates[i])
> break;
>
> return i;
> @@ -1564,7 +1564,8 @@ intel_dp_max_link_rate(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>
> int intel_dp_rate_select(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, int rate)
> {
> - return rate_to_index(rate, intel_dp->sink_rates);
> + return rate_to_index(intel_dp->sink_rates, intel_dp->num_sink_rates,
> + rate);
> }
>
> void intel_dp_compute_rate(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, int port_clock,
> --
> 2.1.4
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
