On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 11:15 +0800, yakui_zhao wrote: > Subject: [DRM/I915]: Sync the mode validation for INTERLACE/DBLSCAN > From: Zhao Yakui <yakui.z...@intel.com> > > Sync the mode validation for INTERLACE/DBLSCAN > This covers: > Check whether the INTERLACE/DBLSCAN is supported by output device. If > not, the mode containing the flag of INTERLACE/DBLSCAN will be marked > as unsupported. > > Fix the code-style based on Eric's suggestion > Signed-off-by: Zhao Yakui <yakui.z...@intel.com>
The commit message here should look like:
drm: Sync the mode validation for INTERLACE/DBLSCAN
Check whether the INTERLACE/DBLSCAN is supported by output device. If
not, the mode containing the flag of INTERLACE/DBLSCAN will be marked
as unsupported.
Signed-off-by: Zhao Yakui <yakui.z...@intel.com>
(drm: not drm/i915: since it doesn't touch i915 at all, and you've got
lines duplicated, strangely indented, and a line about a change in this
commit to the previous revision of the commit instead of about what this
code does compared to the code it's changing)
The drm versus drm/i915: is an important signal to me for whether it
should go through my tree or airlied's.
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc_helper.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc_helper.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc_helper.c 2009-03-23
> 09:29:59.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-2.6/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc_helper.c 2009-03-23
> 11:13:43.000000000 +0800
> @@ -42,6 +42,25 @@
> DRM_MODE_FLAG_PHSYNC | DRM_MODE_FLAG_PVSYNC) },
> };
>
> +static void drm_mode_validate_flag(struct drm_connector *connector,
> + int flags)
> +{
> + struct drm_display_mode *mode, *t;
Usually we put a blank line between declarations and code.
> + if (flags == (DRM_MODE_FLAG_DBLSCAN | DRM_MODE_FLAG_INTERLACE))
> + return;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(mode, t, &connector->modes, head) {
> + if ((mode->flags & DRM_MODE_FLAG_INTERLACE) &&
> + !(flags & DRM_MODE_FLAG_INTERLACE))
> + mode->status = MODE_NO_INTERLACE;
> + if ((mode->flags & DRM_MODE_FLAG_DBLSCAN) &&
> + !(flags & DRM_MODE_FLAG_DBLSCAN))
> + mode->status = MODE_NO_DBLESCAN;
> + }
> +
> + return;
> +}
> +
> /**
> * drm_helper_probe_connector_modes - get complete set of display modes
> * @dev: DRM device
> @@ -72,6 +91,7 @@
> struct drm_connector_helper_funcs *connector_funcs =
> connector->helper_private;
> int count = 0;
> + int mode_flags = 0;
>
> DRM_DEBUG("%s\n", drm_get_connector_name(connector));
> /* set all modes to the unverified state */
> @@ -96,6 +116,15 @@
> if (maxX && maxY)
> drm_mode_validate_size(dev, &connector->modes, maxX,
> maxY, 0);
> +
> + {
> + if (connector->interlace_allowed)
> + mode_flags |= DRM_MODE_FLAG_INTERLACE;
> + if (connector->doublescan_allowed)
> + mode_flags |= DRM_MODE_FLAG_DBLSCAN;
> + drm_mode_validate_flag(connector, mode_flags);
> + }
> +
Why is this mysteriously in a new block?
--
Eric Anholt
e...@anholt.net eric.anh...@intel.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
