On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:54:22PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > @@ -248,21 +250,46 @@ __must_check int media_entity_pipeline_start(struct
> > media_entity *entity, if (!entity->ops || !entity->ops->link_validate)
> > continue;
> >
> > + bitmap_zero(active, entity->num_pads);
> > + bitmap_fill(has_no_links, entity->num_pads);
> > +
> > for (i = 0; i < entity->num_links; i++) {
> > struct media_link *link = &entity->links[i];
> > -
> > - /* Is this pad part of an enabled link? */
> > - if (!(link->flags & MEDIA_LNK_FL_ENABLED))
> > - continue;
> > -
> > - /* Are we the sink or not? */
> > - if (link->sink->entity != entity)
> > + struct media_pad *pad = link->sink->entity == entity
> > + ? link->sink : link->source;
>
> What about aligning the ? to the = ? With that change,
How about to the beginning of the next operand rather than "="?
(Think of adding parentheses around the rvalue of "=".)
I think it's fine as it was, but if it's to be changed then it should be
aligned to link->sink->entity IMHO. :-)
--
Cheers,
Sakari Ailus
e-mail: sakari.ai...@iki.fi XMPP: sai...@retiisi.org.uk
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
