> > > > +static void write_iet(struct intel_display *display, enum pipe pipe,
> > > > + u32 *data)
> > > > +{
> > > > + int i;
> > > > +
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < HISTOGRAM_IET_LENGTH; i++) {
> > > > + if (DISPLAY_VER(display) >= 20)
> > > > + intel_de_rmw(display, DPST_IE_BIN(pipe),
> > > > + DPST_IE_BIN_DATA_MASK,
> > > > + DPST_IE_BIN_DATA(data[i]));
> > > > + else
> > > > + intel_de_rmw(display, DPST_BIN(pipe),
> > > > + DPST_BIN_DATA_MASK,
> > > > + DPST_BIN_DATA(data[i]));
> > > > +
> > > > + drm_dbg_atomic(display->drm, "iet_lut[%d]=%x\n",
> > > > + i, data[i]);
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > This looks more clean according to me if (DISPLAY_VER(display) >=
> > > 20) {
> > > register_base = DPST_IE_BIN(pipe);
> > > data_mask = DPST_IE_BIN_DATA_MASK;
> > > data_temp = DPST_IE_BIN_DATA(data[i]); } else {
> > > register_base = DPST_BIN(pipe);
> > > data_mask = DPST_BIN_DATA_MASK;
> > > data_temp = DPST_BIN_DATA(data[i]); } intel_de_rmw(display,
> > > register_base, data_mask, data_temp);
> > > drm_dbg_atomic(display->drm, "iet_lut[%d]=%x\n", i, data[i]);
> > >
> >
> > With the above code snippet data_temp will have to be in the for loop
> > so as to get the bit mapped value of data[i]
> >
>
> Yes the whole code snippet will be inside the loop itself
>
In that case I don't see any advantage of this over the present code.
If you still insist will do the necessary changes.
Thanks and Regards,
Arun R Murthy
--------------------
