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
