On Sat, 2019-08-17 at 02:38 -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > From: José Roberto de Souza <jose.so...@intel.com> > > Same as for_each_oldnew_intel_crtc_in_state() but iterates in reverse > order. > > v2: Fix additional blank line > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.v...@intel.com> > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com> > Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.so...@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demar...@intel.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h | 9 +++++++++ > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h > index fd3043e77b50..b63fb7a4599e 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h > @@ -419,6 +419,15 @@ enum phy_fia { > ((connector) = > to_intel_connector((__state)->base.connectors[__i].ptr), \ > (new_connector_state) = > to_intel_digital_connector_state((__state)- > >base.connectors[__i].new_state), 1)) > > +#define for_each_oldnew_intel_crtc_in_state_reverse(__state, crtc, > old_crtc_state, new_crtc_state, __i) \ > + for ((__i) = (__state)->base.dev->mode_config.num_crtc - 1; \ Maybe aligning these two 'for' loops on top of each other similarly to to other. Now, it seems the lower one is off by one.
Otherwise, this is Reviewed-by: Mika Kahola <mika.kah...@intel.com> > + (__i) >= 0 && \ > + ((crtc) = to_intel_crtc((__state)->base.crtcs[__i].ptr), \ > + (old_crtc_state) = to_intel_crtc_state((__state)- > >base.crtcs[__i].old_state), \ > + (new_crtc_state) = to_intel_crtc_state((__state)- > >base.crtcs[__i].new_state), 1); \ > + (__i)--) \ > + for_each_if(crtc) > + > void intel_link_compute_m_n(u16 bpp, int nlanes, > int pixel_clock, int link_clock, > struct intel_link_m_n *m_n, _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx