Won't it make more sense to squash this patch with Patch 01 in this series? When i was reading Patch 1, I almost was going to comment about handling the case where we dont find the index..
Regards Manasi On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 05:59:02PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > We shouldn't silently use the first element if we can't find the rate > we're looking for. Make rate_to_index() more generally useful, and > fallback to the first element in the caller, with a big warning. > > Cc: Manasi Navare <[email protected]> > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 13 +++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > index 88c708b07c70..0e200a37b75b 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > @@ -1544,9 +1544,9 @@ static int rate_to_index(const int *rates, int len, int > rate) > > for (i = 0; i < len; i++) > if (rate == rates[i]) > - break; > + return i; > > - return i; > + return -1; > } > > int > @@ -1564,8 +1564,13 @@ 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(intel_dp->sink_rates, intel_dp->num_sink_rates, > - rate); > + int i = rate_to_index(intel_dp->sink_rates, intel_dp->num_sink_rates, > + rate); > + > + if (WARN_ON(i < 0)) > + i = 0; > + > + return i; > } > > void intel_dp_compute_rate(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, int port_clock, > -- > 2.1.4 > _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
