On 2023-07-28 18:03:35, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > - if (irq_idx < 0 || irq_idx >= intr->total_irqs) {
> > > + if (!irq_idx || irq_idx > intr->total_irqs) {
> > > pr_err("invalid IRQ index: [%d]\n", irq_idx);
> >
> > Logs like this might be harder to interpret (and compare
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 at 22:58, Marijn Suijten
wrote:
>
> Title nit: How about making this "UP by 1"?
>
> On 2023-07-27 18:04:55, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > In order to simplify IRQ declarations, shift IRQ indices by 1. This
>
> Same here, UP by one.
>
> > makes 0 the 'no IRQ' value. Thanks to this
Title nit: How about making this "UP by 1"?
On 2023-07-27 18:04:55, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> In order to simplify IRQ declarations, shift IRQ indices by 1. This
Same here, UP by one.
> makes 0 the 'no IRQ' value. Thanks to this change, we do no longer have
> to explicitly set the 'no interrupt'
In order to simplify IRQ declarations, shift IRQ indices by 1. This
makes 0 the 'no IRQ' value. Thanks to this change, we do no longer have
to explicitly set the 'no interrupt' fields in catalog structures.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov
---
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_3_0_msm8998.h | 4 --
