Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] New function to avoid duplicate code in upcomming commits

[Werner Sembach <wse@tuxedocomputers.com>]

Am 06.05.21 um 12:19 schrieb Jani Nikula:
> On Wed, 05 May 2021, Werner Sembach <wse@tuxedocomputers.com> wrote:
>> Moves some checks that later will be performed 2 times to an own fuction. This
>> avoids duplicate code later on.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Werner Sembach <wse@tuxedocomputers.com>
>> ---
>>
>> From 42a4a3a7d9ea9948b4071f406e7fcae23bfa0bdf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Werner Sembach <wse@tuxedocomputers.com>
>> Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 14:35:39 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH 1/3] New function to avoid duplicate code in upcomming commits
> What are you using to generate and send the patches? This looks like
> unnecessary cruft, and our CI fails to apply and test the changes.
>
> BR,
> Jani.
I'm using git send-email with --compose and --annotate. The From, Date, and Subject lines are automatically generated by it and I then add the commit message above.

After reading https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.12/process/submitting-patches.html#the-canonical-patch-format I thought the format was:

<commit message for upstream and signed of lines>
---
<additional comments only for mailing list/stuff that gets ignored by the tools>
---
<the patch>

With the middle part being optional. (I only tested with "git apply" which worked fine with the format)

I will resend the patches without the middle part, and the drm/i915/display in all subject lines.

>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdmi.c | 41 ++++++++++++++---------
>>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdmi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdmi.c
>> index 46de56af33db..576d3d910d06 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdmi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdmi.c
>> @@ -1861,6 +1861,31 @@ static int intel_hdmi_port_clock(int clock, int bpc)
>>  	return clock * bpc / 8;
>>  }
>>  
>> +static enum drm_mode_status
>> +intel_hdmi_mode_clock_valid(struct intel_hdmi *hdmi, int clock, bool has_hdmi_sink)
>> +{
>> +	struct drm_device *dev = intel_hdmi_to_dev(hdmi);
>> +	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
>> +	enum drm_mode_status status;
>> +
>> +	/* check if we can do 8bpc */
>> +	status = hdmi_port_clock_valid(hdmi, clock, true, has_hdmi_sink);
>> +
>> +	if (has_hdmi_sink) {
>> +		/* if we can't do 8bpc we may still be able to do 12bpc */
>> +		if (status != MODE_OK && !HAS_GMCH(dev_priv))
>> +			status = hdmi_port_clock_valid(hdmi, clock * 3 / 2,
>> +						       true, has_hdmi_sink);
>> +
>> +		/* if we can't do 8,12bpc we may still be able to do 10bpc */
>> +		if (status != MODE_OK && INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 11)
>> +			status = hdmi_port_clock_valid(hdmi, clock * 5 / 4,
>> +						       true, has_hdmi_sink);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return status;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static enum drm_mode_status
>>  intel_hdmi_mode_valid(struct drm_connector *connector,
>>  		      struct drm_display_mode *mode)
>> @@ -1891,21 +1916,7 @@ intel_hdmi_mode_valid(struct drm_connector *connector,
>>  	if (drm_mode_is_420_only(&connector->display_info, mode))
>>  		clock /= 2;
>>  
>> -	/* check if we can do 8bpc */
>> -	status = hdmi_port_clock_valid(hdmi, intel_hdmi_port_clock(clock, 8),
>> -				       true, has_hdmi_sink);
>> -
>> -	if (has_hdmi_sink) {
>> -		/* if we can't do 8bpc we may still be able to do 12bpc */
>> -		if (status != MODE_OK && !HAS_GMCH(dev_priv))
>> -			status = hdmi_port_clock_valid(hdmi, intel_hdmi_port_clock(clock, 12),
>> -						       true, has_hdmi_sink);
>> -
>> -		/* if we can't do 8,12bpc we may still be able to do 10bpc */
>> -		if (status != MODE_OK && DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) >= 11)
>> -			status = hdmi_port_clock_valid(hdmi, intel_hdmi_port_clock(clock, 10),
>> -						       true, has_hdmi_sink);
>> -	}
>> +	status = intel_hdmi_mode_clock_valid(hdmi, clock, has_hdmi_sink);
>>  	if (status != MODE_OK)
>>  		return status;