Re: [PATCH 1/7] drm: Renaming DP training vswing pre emph defines

Damien Lespiau
2014-08-28T07:01:51Z

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