Re: [PATCH 5/6] drm/i915/psr: Rename intel_crtc_state has_psr to can_psr

["Pandiyan, Dhinakaran" <dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com>]

On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 15:36 -0700, José Roberto de Souza wrote:
> This value is a match of hardware and sink has PSR + if it can be
> enabled by the requested state, see intel_psr_compute_config().
> 
> Cc: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <dhinakaran.pandiyan@intel.com>
> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h |  4 ++--
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 12 ++++++------
>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> index a215aa78b0be..cccaf84415ab 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> @@ -807,8 +807,8 @@ struct intel_crtc_state {
>  	struct intel_link_m_n dp_m2_n2;
>  	bool has_drrs;
>  
> -	bool has_psr;
> -	bool has_psr2;
> +	bool can_psr;
> +	bool can_psr2;


I am not convinced by this change, the computed state either has PSR1 or
PSR2, "can" connotes ambiguity in my opinion.


I was thinking of converting this to an u8 psr = [0,1,2] to mean no PSR,
PSR1 and PSR2 respectively. We can do away with the has/can confusion :)

Using bool does save us 6 bits though depending on how the structure is
packed. 
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx