Dne ponedeljek, 24. junij 2019 ob 17:56:30 CEST je Chen-Yu Tsai napisal(a):
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 11:49 PM Andrzej Hajda a.hajda@samsung.com wrote:
On 24.06.2019 17:05, Jernej Škrabec wrote:
Dne ponedeljek, 24. junij 2019 ob 17:03:31 CEST je Andrzej Hajda
napisal(a):
On 26.05.2019 23:20, Jonas Karlman wrote:
This patch enables Dynamic Range and Mastering InfoFrame on H6.
Cc: Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@bootlin.com Cc: Jernej Skrabec jernej.skrabec@siol.net Signed-off-by: Jonas Karlman jonas@kwiboo.se
drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun8i_dw_hdmi.c | 2 ++ drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun8i_dw_hdmi.h | 1 + 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun8i_dw_hdmi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun8i_dw_hdmi.c index 39d8509d96a0..b80164dd8ad8 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun8i_dw_hdmi.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun8i_dw_hdmi.c @@ -189,6 +189,7 @@ static int sun8i_dw_hdmi_bind(struct device *dev, struct device *master,>
sun8i_hdmi_phy_init(hdmi->phy); plat_data->mode_valid = hdmi->quirks->mode_valid;
plat_data->drm_infoframe = hdmi->quirks->drm_infoframe;
sun8i_hdmi_phy_set_ops(hdmi->phy, plat_data);
platform_set_drvdata(pdev, hdmi);
@@ -255,6 +256,7 @@ static const struct sun8i_dw_hdmi_quirks sun8i_a83t_quirks = {>
static const struct sun8i_dw_hdmi_quirks sun50i_h6_quirks = {
.mode_valid = sun8i_dw_hdmi_mode_valid_h6,
- .drm_infoframe = true,
};
static const struct of_device_id sun8i_dw_hdmi_dt_ids[] = {
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun8i_dw_hdmi.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun8i_dw_hdmi.h index 720c5aa8adc1..2a0ec08ee236 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun8i_dw_hdmi.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun8i_dw_hdmi.h @@ -178,6 +178,7 @@ struct sun8i_dw_hdmi_quirks {
enum drm_mode_status (*mode_valid)(struct drm_connector*connector,
const structdrm_display_mode *mode);
unsigned int set_rate : 1;
- unsigned int drm_infoframe : 1;
Again, drm_infoframe suggests it contains inforframe, but in fact it just informs infoframe can be used, so again my suggestion use_drm_infoframe.
Moreover bool type seems more appropriate here.
checkpatch will give warning if bool is used.
Then I would say "fix/ignore checkpatch" :)
But maybe there is a reason.
Here's an old one from Linus: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/1/154
I'd say that bool in a struct is a waste of space compared to a 1 bit bitfield, especially when there already are other bitfields in the same struct.
Anyway I've tested and I do not see the warning, could you elaborate it.
Maybe checkpatch.pl --strict?
It seems they removed that check: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/? id=7967656ffbfa493f5546c0f1
After reading that block of text, I'm not sure what would be prefered way for this case.
Best regards, Jernej