lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 2/7] drm/panel: simple: Add ability to override typical timing
Sam,

On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 10:50 AM Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Dough.
>
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 09:39:24AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 1:22 PM Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > @@ -91,6 +92,8 @@ struct panel_simple {
> > > > struct i2c_adapter *ddc;
> > > >
> > > > struct gpio_desc *enable_gpio;
> > > > +
> > > > + struct drm_display_mode override_mode;
> > > I fail to see where this poiter is assigned.
> >
> > In panel_simple_parse_override_mode(). Specifically:
> >
> > drm_display_mode_from_videomode(&vm, &panel->override_mode);
>
> The above code-snippet is only called in the panel has specified display
> timings using display_timings - it is not called when display_mode is
> used.
> So override_mode is only assigned in some cases and not all cases.
> This needs to be fixed so we do not reference override_mode unless
> it is set.

I'm afraid I'm not following you here.

* override_mode is a structure that's directly part of "struct panel_simple".

* The panel is allocated in panel_simple_probe() with devm_kzalloc().

* The "z" in kzalloc means that this memory will be zero-initialized.

From the points above, "override_mode" will always be set to
something. If we didn't run "drm_display_mode_from_videomode(&vm,
&panel->override_mode);" then we know the entire override_mode
structure will be zero.

While it took a while for me to get used to it, the kernel convention
is to rely on zero-initialization and not to explicitly init things to
zero. As an example of this being codified in the source, you can see
that "checkpatch.pl" will yell at you for a similar thing: "do not
initialise globals to 0".


> > > @@ -152,6 +162,44 @@ static int panel_simple_get_fixed_modes(struct panel_simple *panel)
> > > > num++;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > + return num;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static int panel_simple_get_non_edid_modes(struct panel_simple *panel)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct drm_connector *connector = panel->base.connector;
> > > > + struct drm_device *drm = panel->base.drm;
> > > > + struct drm_display_mode *mode;
> > > > + bool has_override = panel->override_mode.type;
> > > This looks suspicious.
> > > panel->override_mode.type is an unsigned int that may have a number of
> > > bits set.
> > > So the above code implicitly convert a .type != 0 to a true.
> > > This can be expressed in a much more reader friendly way.
> >
> > You would suggest that I add a boolean field to a structure to
> > indicate whether an override mode is present?
> A simple bool has_override = panel->override_mode.type != 0;
> would do the trick here.
> Then there is no hidden conversion from int to a bool.

I will change this to "panel->override_mode.type != 0" if you're
really sure, but this seems both against the general Linux style
feedback I've received over the years (though there is definitely not
100% consistency) and also against the local convention in this file.
Examples in this file of treating ints as bools without an explicit
"!= 0":

* panel_simple_get_fixed_modes checks "if (panel->desc->bus_format)"
* panel_simple_disable checks "if (p->desc->delay.disable)"
* panel_simple_unprepare checks "if (p->desc->delay.unprepare)"
* panel_simple_prepare checks "if (delay)"
* panel_simple_enable checks "if (p->desc->delay.enable)"

...and, although slightly different, pointers in this file are checked
for NULL vs. non-NULL without an explicit "== NULL".

Of course just because all the other examples in the file do it one
way doesn't mean that new code has to do it another way, but I wanted
to be really sure you wanted me to go against the existing convention
before changing this.


> But as override_mode can be NULL something more needs to be done.

I'm afraid I don't understand how override_mode can be NULL since it's
not a pointer. Can you clarify?


-Doug

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-11 00:40    [W:0.063 / U:48.200 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site