On 22-03-22, 19:59, Marijn Suijten wrote:
On 2022-03-22 22:46:50, Vinod Koul wrote:
On 17-02-22, 16:11, Marijn Suijten wrote:
Hi Vinod,
Thanks for taking time to go through this review, please find some clarifications below.
On 2022-02-17 16:44:04, Vinod Koul wrote:
Hi Marijn,
On 11-12-21, 01:03, Marijn Suijten wrote:
+static int dsi_dsc_update_pic_dim(struct msm_display_dsc_config *dsc,
int pic_width, int pic_height)This function - adopted from downstream - does not seem to perform a whole lot, especially without the modulo checks against the slice size. Perhaps it can be inlined?
Most of the code here is :)
This was split from downstream code to check and update dimension. We can inline this, or should we leave that to compiler. I am not a very big fan of inlining...
It doesn't seem beneficial to code readability to have this function, which is only called just once and also has the same struct members read in a `DBG()` directly, abstracted away to a function. Not really concerned about generated code/performance FWIW.
Also note that the caller isn't checking the `-EINVAL` result...
I have made this void inline.
Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here: with inlining I am referring to the process of transplanting the _function body_ to the only call-site, not adding the `inline` keyword nor changing this to `void`.
The checks that make this function return `-EINVAL` seem valid, so the caller should check it instead of removing the return?
Okay somehow I misunderstood then, let me see how the code looks in this case then