On Thu, 2020-01-30 at 19:16 +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 05:58:36PM -0800, José Roberto de Souza wrote:
This is a eDP function and it will always returns true for non-eDP ports.
Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza jose.souza@intel.com
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c index 4074d83b1a5f..a50b5b6dd009 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c @@ -7537,7 +7537,6 @@ intel_dp_init_connector(struct intel_digital_port *intel_dig_port,
if (!intel_edp_init_connector(intel_dp, intel_connector)) { intel_dp_aux_fini(intel_dp);
intel_dp_mst_encoder_cleanup(intel_dig_port);This makes the unwind look incomplete to the causual reader. The cleanup function does both anyway so cross checking is harder if they're not consistent. So not sure I like it. Hmm. The ordering of these two also looks off here.
Maybe nicer to just move the whole onion to the end of function (we alredy have one layer there)?
If I need to rework the 4/4 patch I will do that, otherwise I will just ignore this patch.
Please check my answer to your comment.
goto fail;}
-- 2.25.0
Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx