On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:34:35AM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c 
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c
> index cee31d43cd1c..fb79c54b2aed 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c
> @@ -420,8 +420,6 @@ drm_atomic_helper_check_modeset(struct drm_device *dev,
>        * crtc only changed its mode but has the same set of connectors.
>        */
>       for_each_crtc_in_state(state, crtc, crtc_state, i) {
> -             int num_connectors;
> -
>               /*
>                * We must set ->active_changed after walking connectors for
>                * otherwise an update that only changes active would result in
> @@ -449,10 +447,7 @@ drm_atomic_helper_check_modeset(struct drm_device *dev,
>               if (ret != 0)
>                       return ret;
>  
> -             num_connectors = drm_atomic_connectors_for_crtc(state,
> -                                                             crtc);
> -
> -             if (crtc_state->enable != !!num_connectors) {
> +             if (crtc_state->enable != !!crtc_state->connector_mask) {

I have difficulty to doubly negate in my head, so something like this
would be a lot clearer in my opinion:

        bool enable = crtc_state->connector_mask != 0;

        ...

        if (crtc_state->enable != enable)
                ...

Or perhaps even:

        bool disable = crtc_state->connector_mask == 0;

        ...

        if (crtc_state->enable == disable)
                ...

>                       DRM_DEBUG_ATOMIC("[CRTC:%d] enabled/connectors 
> mismatch\n",
>                                        crtc->base.id);
>  
> @@ -1668,7 +1663,7 @@ static int update_output_state(struct drm_atomic_state 
> *state,
>               if (crtc == set->crtc)
>                       continue;
>  
> -             if (!drm_atomic_connectors_for_crtc(state, crtc)) {
> +             if (!crtc_state->connector_mask) {

Similarly I think it would be more natural to say:

                if (crtc->state->connector_mask == 0)

here.

Anyway, this is mostly about personal taste, and the change looks
correct to me (after checking twice that I got the double negation
right), so:

Reviewed-by: Thierry Reding <tred...@nvidia.com>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Reply via email to