On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 08:47:54AM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 01:28:19PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 04:23:40PM +0530, sonika.jin...@intel.com wrote: > > > From: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jin...@intel.com> > > > > > > Adding new defines, older one will be removed in the last patch in the > > > series. > > > This is to rename the defines to have levels instead of values for vswing > > > and > > > pre-emph levels as the values may differ in other scenarios like low > > > vswing of > > > eDP1.4 where the values are different. > > > > > > Done using following cocci patch for each define: > > > @@ > > > @@ > > > > > > # define DP_TRAIN_VOLTAGE_SWING_400 (0 << 0) > > > + # define DP_TRAIN_VOLTAGE_SWING_LEVEL_0 (0 << 0) > > > > Could this perhaps be simply: > > > > #define DP_TRAIN_VOLTAGE_SWING(x) ((x) << 0) > > > > As it is, there's no information about the value within the symbolic > > name anyway, so _LEVEL_* really isn't that useful and keeping several > > macros for each value seems isn't either. > > The _LEVEL_ part is quite important IMHO, that's what changes between those > different defines, controlling a level shifter, somewhere. > > So we're left with > > #define DP_TRAIN_VOLTAGE_SWING_LEVEL_0 (0 << 0) > > Vs > > #define DP_TRAIN_VOLTAGE_SWING_LEVEL(x) ((x) << 0) > > The second variant doesn't really bring much more clarity? Can we just > go with the first?
I think the parameterized version is more convenient, especially if you want to use that during training sequences and iterate over the levels. But I don't feel too strongly about it, so either way is fine with me. Thierry
pgpKjFraNIN7s.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
