On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 05:51:26PM -0400, Lyude Paul wrote:
*sigh* finally have some time to go through these reviews
Hey it took me longer to start even reviewing this, and not even through :-( than it took you to reply here. So no worries!
jfyi: I realized after looking over this patch that it's not actually needed - I had been planning on using drm_dp_dump_link_address() for other things, but ended up deciding to make the final plan to use something that dumps into a format that's identical to the one we're using for dumping DOWN requests. IMHO though, this patch does make things look nicer so I'll probably keep it.
Assuming I can still count your r-b as valid with a change to the commit description?
Sure.
Cheers, Daniel
On Thu, 2019-08-08 at 21:53 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 09:42:24PM -0400, Lyude Paul wrote:
Since we're about to be calling this from multiple places. Also it makes things easier to read!
Cc: Juston Li juston.li@intel.com Cc: Imre Deak imre.deak@intel.com Cc: Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com Cc: Harry Wentland hwentlan@amd.com Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul lyude@redhat.com
Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c index 0984b9a34d55..998081b9b205 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_mst_topology.c @@ -2013,6 +2013,28 @@ static void drm_dp_queue_down_tx(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr, mutex_unlock(&mgr->qlock); }
+static void +drm_dp_dump_link_address(struct drm_dp_link_address_ack_reply *reply) +{
- struct drm_dp_link_addr_reply_port *port_reply;
- int i;
- for (i = 0; i < reply->nports; i++) {
port_reply = &reply->ports[i];DRM_DEBUG_KMS("port %d: input %d, pdt: %d, pn: %d, dpcd_rev:%02x, mcs: %d, ddps: %d, ldps %d, sdp %d/%d\n",
i,port_reply->input_port,port_reply->peer_device_type,port_reply->port_number,port_reply->dpcd_revision,port_reply->mcs,port_reply->ddps,port_reply->legacy_device_plug_status,port_reply->num_sdp_streams,port_reply->num_sdp_stream_sinks);- }
+}
static void drm_dp_send_link_address(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr, struct drm_dp_mst_branch *mstb) { @@ -2038,18 +2060,7 @@ static void drm_dp_send_link_address(struct drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr *mgr, DRM_DEBUG_KMS("link address nak received\n"); } else { DRM_DEBUG_KMS("link address reply: %d\n", txmsg-
reply.u.link_addr.nports);
for (i = 0; i < txmsg->reply.u.link_addr.nports; i++){
DRM_DEBUG_KMS("port %d: input %d, pdt: %d, pn:%d, dpcd_rev: %02x, mcs: %d, ddps: %d, ldps %d, sdp %d/%d\n", i,
txmsg-reply.u.link_addr.ports[i].input_port,
txmsg-reply.u.link_addr.ports[i].peer_device_type,
txmsg-reply.u.link_addr.ports[i].port_number,
txmsg-reply.u.link_addr.ports[i].dpcd_revision,
txmsg->reply.u.link_addr.ports[i].mcs,txmsg->reply.u.link_addr.ports[i].ddps,txmsg-reply.u.link_addr.ports[i].legacy_device_plug_status,
txmsg-reply.u.link_addr.ports[i].num_sdp_streams,
txmsg-reply.u.link_addr.ports[i].num_sdp_stream_sinks);
}
drm_dp_dump_link_address(&txmsg->reply.u.link_addr); drm_dp_check_mstb_guid(mstb, txmsg-reply.u.link_addr.guid);
-- 2.21.0
-- Cheers, Lyude Paul