Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 1/2] drm/edid: Name the detailed monitor range flags

From: Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@intel.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Kazlauskas Nicholas <Nicholas.Kazlauskas@amd.com>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 1/2] drm/edid: Name the detailed monitor range flags
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 13:34:55 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200309203454.GA12741@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87h7yylyc7.fsf@intel.com>

On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 10:35:52AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Mar 2020, Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 12:30:46PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> On Thu, 05 Mar 2020, Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@intel.com> wrote:
> >> > This patch adds defines for the detailed monitor
> >> > range flags as per the EDID specification.
> >> >
> >> > Suggested-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> >> > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> >> > Cc: Harry Wentland <harry.wentland@amd.com>
> >> > Cc: Clinton A Taylor <clinton.a.taylor@intel.com>
> >> > Cc: Kazlauskas Nicholas <Nicholas.Kazlauskas@amd.com>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@intel.com>
> >> > ---
> >> >  include/drm/drm_edid.h | 5 +++++
> >> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/include/drm/drm_edid.h b/include/drm/drm_edid.h
> >> > index f0b03d401c27..f89c97623845 100644
> >> > --- a/include/drm/drm_edid.h
> >> > +++ b/include/drm/drm_edid.h
> >> > @@ -91,6 +91,11 @@ struct detailed_data_string {
> >> >  	u8 str[13];
> >> >  } __attribute__((packed));
> >> >  
> >> > +#define EDID_DEFAULT_GTF_SUPPORT_FLAG   0x00
> >> > +#define EDID_RANGE_LIMITS_ONLY_FLAG     0x01
> >> > +#define EDID_SECONDARY_GTF_SUPPORT_FLAG 0x02
> >> > +#define EDID_CVT_SUPPORT_FLAG           0x04
> >> 
> >> Bikeshed for consideration:
> >> 
> >> drm_edid.h has some macros with DRM_EDID_ prefix, some with EDID_
> >> prefix, and then some with no prefix at all really. Should we start
> >> consolidating on something when we add more?
> >>
> >
> > Yes Jani I did notice the same thing and didnt know which convention
> > to continue to follow but I noticed that majority of the defines were
> > just EDID_ so just used that for these new defines.
> 
> Ah, look again, DRM_EDID_ trumps EDID_ 51 to 15.
> 
> > Is there a particular way you wish to consolidate this and use a specific
> > convention for #defines?
> >
> > I can atleast change these new defines based on a preferred convention and then
> > separate patches to change the rest in .h and corresponding usages in .c files.
> 
> I'd suggest DRM_EDID_ for new ones, perhaps eventually rename old ones.

Okay cool, I will rename this to be DRM_EDID_ and then work on renaming others later
Thanks for pointing this out.

Regards
Manasi

> 
> BR,
> Jani.
> 
> 
> >
> > Regards
> > Manasi
> >  
> >> BR,
> >> Jani.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> > +
> >> >  struct detailed_data_monitor_range {
> >> >  	u8 min_vfreq;
> >> >  	u8 max_vfreq;
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
> 
> -- 
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel