On 3/10/23 12:51, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 07:48:04PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 04:30:27PM -0500, Hamza Mahfooz wrote:
>>> We should be checking if drm_dp_dpcd_read() returns the size that we are
>>> asking it to read instead of just checking
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 07:48:04PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 04:30:27PM -0500, Hamza Mahfooz wrote:
> > We should be checking if drm_dp_dpcd_read() returns the size that we are
> > asking it to read instead of just checking if it is greater than zero.
> > Also, we
On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 04:30:27PM -0500, Hamza Mahfooz wrote:
> We should be checking if drm_dp_dpcd_read() returns the size that we are
> asking it to read instead of just checking if it is greater than zero.
> Also, we should WARN_ON() here since this condition is only ever met, if
> there is
On 3/9/23 14:30, Hamza Mahfooz wrote:
We should be checking if drm_dp_dpcd_read() returns the size that we are
asking it to read instead of just checking if it is greater than zero.
Also, we should WARN_ON() here since this condition is only ever met, if
there is an issue worth investigating.
We should be checking if drm_dp_dpcd_read() returns the size that we are
asking it to read instead of just checking if it is greater than zero.
Also, we should WARN_ON() here since this condition is only ever met, if
there is an issue worth investigating. So, compare the return value of
