[PATCH v1 09/35] drm/modes: Move named modes parsing to a separate function

[Maxime Ripard]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 03:27:17PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
> 
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 6:36 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime at cerno.tech> wrote:
> > The current construction of the named mode parsing doesn't allow to extend
> > it easily. Let's move it to a separate function so we can add more
> > parameters and modes.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime at cerno.tech>
> 
> Thanks for your patch, which looks similar to my "[PATCH v2 2/5]
> drm/modes: Extract drm_mode_parse_cmdline_named_mode()"
> (https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/1371554419ae63cb54c2a377db0c1016fcf200bb.1657788997.git.geert@linux-m68k.org
> ;-)

Indeed, I forgot about that one, sorry :/

I think I'd still prefer to have the check for refresh + named mode
outside of the function, since I see them as an "integration" issue, not
a parsing one.

It's not the named mode parsing that fails, but the fact that we both
have a valid refresh and a valid named mode.

> 
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modes.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modes.c
> > @@ -1773,6 +1773,28 @@ static const char * const drm_named_modes_whitelist[] = {
> >         "PAL",
> >  };
> >
> > +static bool drm_mode_parse_cmdline_named_mode(const char *name,
> > +                                             unsigned int name_end,
> > +                                             struct drm_cmdline_mode *cmdline_mode)
> > +{
> > +       unsigned int i;
> > +
> > +       for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(drm_named_modes_whitelist); i++) {
> > +               int ret;
> > +
> > +               ret = str_has_prefix(name, drm_named_modes_whitelist[i]);
> > +               if (ret != name_end)
> > +                       continue;
> > +
> > +               strcpy(cmdline_mode->name, drm_named_modes_whitelist[i]);
> > +               cmdline_mode->specified = true;
> > +
> > +               return true;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       return false;
> 
> What's the point in returning a value, if it is never checked?
> Just make this function return void?

Yeah, it's something I went back and forth to between the dev, and it's
an artifact.

I'll drop that patch, take your version and move the refresh check to
drm_mode_parse_command_line_for_connector if that's alright for you?

Maxime
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-amlogic/attachments/20220816/9bd6ea91/attachment.sig>