From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Damien Lespiau Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] drm: Renaming DP training vswing pre emph defines Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 08:01:51 +0100 Message-ID: <20140828070151.GC5495@strange.ger.corp.intel.com> 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> <20140827131107.GI23186@ulmo> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140827131107.GI23186@ulmo> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" To: Thierry Reding Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 03:11:08PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > So we're left with > > > > #define DP_TRAIN_VOLTAGE_SWING_LEVEL_0 (0 << 0) > > > > Vs > > > > #define DP_TRAIN_VOLTAGE_SWING_LEVEL(x) ((x) << 0) > > > > 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. That's a fair point, but today's code manages to do without that nicety. I think these kind of refinements could go in series with code actually using them on top. > But I don't feel too strongly about it, so either way is fine with me. Thanks, taking some of your time to provide feedback is always appreciated! -- Damien