Re: [PATCH 1/7] drm: Renaming DP training vswing pre emph defines

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 03:11:08PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:

...

So we're left with

#define DP_TRAIN_VOLTAGE_SWING_LEVEL_0 (0 << 0)

Vs

#define DP_TRAIN_VOLTAGE_SWING_LEVEL(x) ((x) << 0)

The second variant doesn't really bring much more clarity? Can we just go with the first?

I think the parameterized version is more convenient, especially if you want to use that during training sequences and iterate over the levels.

That's a fair point, but today's code manages to do without that nicety.

I think these kind of refinements could go in series with code actually using them on top.

But I don't feel too strongly about it, so either way is fine with me.

Thanks, taking some of your time to provide feedback is always appreciated!