From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thierry Reding Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] drm: Renaming DP training vswing pre emph defines Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 15:11:08 +0200 Message-ID: <20140827131107.GI23186@ulmo> References: <1407495226-12620-1-git-send-email-sonika.jindal@intel.com> <1407495226-12620-2-git-send-email-sonika.jindal@intel.com> <20140826112818.GA31534@ulmo> <20140827074754.GC6174@strange.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1892843015==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140827074754.GC6174@strange.amr.corp.intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" To: Damien Lespiau Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org --===============1892843015== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="N8NGGaQn1mzfvaPg" Content-Disposition: inline --N8NGGaQn1mzfvaPg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 08:47:54AM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 01:28:19PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 04:23:40PM +0530, sonika.jindal@intel.com wrote: > > > From: Sonika Jindal > > >=20 > > > Adding new defines, older one will be removed in the last patch in th= e series. > > > This is to rename the defines to have levels instead of values for vs= wing and > > > pre-emph levels as the values may differ in other scenarios like low = vswing of > > > eDP1.4 where the values are different. > > >=20 > > > Done using following cocci patch for each define: > > > @@ > > > @@ > > >=20 > > > # define DP_TRAIN_VOLTAGE_SWING_400 (0 << 0) > > > + # define DP_TRAIN_VOLTAGE_SWING_LEVEL_0 (0 << 0) > >=20 > > Could this perhaps be simply: > >=20 > > #define DP_TRAIN_VOLTAGE_SWING(x) ((x) << 0) > >=20 > > As it is, there's no information about the value within the symbolic > > name anyway, so _LEVEL_* really isn't that useful and keeping several > > macros for each value seems isn't either. >=20 > The _LEVEL_ part is quite important IMHO, that's what changes between tho= se > different defines, controlling a level shifter, somewhere. >=20 > So we're left with >=20 > #define DP_TRAIN_VOLTAGE_SWING_LEVEL_0 (0 << 0) >=20 > Vs >=20 > #define DP_TRAIN_VOLTAGE_SWING_LEVEL(x) ((x) << 0) >=20 > The second variant doesn't really bring much more clarity? Can we just > go with the first? I think the parameterized version is more convenient, especially if you want to use that during training sequences and iterate over the levels. But I don't feel too strongly about it, so either way is fine with me. Thierry --N8NGGaQn1mzfvaPg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT/djrAAoJEN0jrNd/PrOhfpkP/jaGWQJnGVbIaBSo1tleATKw N1o0wbrYGwc3Cq8l51sym8No22ottn3F7WjMNpZR+PWu7q4FoJVdF0ixvzhc+aZJ KP6UOlYEfSWKROJ/zYE7LTqzX7qUS0TmE7fWZtj7hpken3MQcN6A5M9GpDHOEKMq 0vUaogPvyB57ZD4tjs2ZVMfhG5x66r2ggTzaRrhp1+wztoDLnU1f6q9HernVj7Nc /egeumCpQnni6VNb4LYBA6hRBZxzApC0/I0WgYseTLkEtYkj6B/bO+b6XmTO05JD URuImikeU1ao5sey+ySjpbemhqOCr0Ng8iUzV/uSCeIs0aTvwjFQHK3Po7g/H8gE 2SjNxlI15gHjV/M++eLhSDI7TmS1nkNbOz/rrFU+TRP2PuhJQZfgAHROrIQbg4J0 yNjXg1sR6v+jMBaJpeZD1G8Zj8g2mZO4bQqUb4YfMwdKJtii+BzxyLsrI8JGBuPL RlSbb7f0qqF8fxYKJJ635TSU5GJ0jKTZEJJtSZMFfeHr4aAH7I7IX+mAHES9C2Zg RSyiDqvi7TgceZDwgfkJq+W3mxFdHxs+EHPQAVOn3FeyHJhne3WyQKwC4kYrZeM3 yW1aIf19pwrXeHSGBo7ooTOr9W8smZ+WR23VQI6DwdIvbbmut3u2DjgWyCcIv549 HhmeIZ/vBC7ktXqt3luy =2NvX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --N8NGGaQn1mzfvaPg-- --===============1892843015== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx --===============1892843015==--