Hi
Am 23.07.19 um 14:44 schrieb Andrzej Pietrasiewicz:
Hi Sam,
W dniu 23.07.2019 o 11:05, Sam Ravnborg pisze:
Hi Andrzej
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 01:26:41PM +0200, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:
Use the ddc pointer provided by the generic connector.
Signed-off-by: Andrzej Pietrasiewicz andrzej.p@collabora.com
drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_tfp410.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_tfp410.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_tfp410.c index 62d014c20988..c373edb95666 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_tfp410.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_tfp410.c @@ -219,6 +219,7 @@ static struct drm_connector *tfp410_connector_create(struct drm_device *dev, tfp410_connector->mod = mod; connector = &tfp410_connector->base; + connector->ddc = mod->i2c; drm_connector_init(dev, connector, &tfp410_connector_funcs, DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DVID);
When reading this code, it looks strange that we set connector->ddc *before* the call to init the connector. One could risk that drm_connector_init() used memset(..) to clear all fields or so, and it would break this order.
I verified the code of drm_connector_init() and cannot find any memset() invocations there. What is your actual concern?
I think this echoes my concern about the implicit order of operation. It seems too easy to get this wrong. If you don't want to add an additional interface for setting the ddc field, why not add a dedicated initializer function that sets the ddc field? Something like this.
int drm_connector_init_with_ddc(connector, funcs, ..., ddc) { ret = drm_connector_init(connector, funcs, ...); if (ret) return ret;
if (!ddc) return 0;
connector->ddc = ddc; /* set up sysfs */
return 0; }
Best regards Thomas
Andrzej _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel