Re: [PATCH 2/4] media: Check for active links on pads with MEDIA_PAD_FL_MUST_CONNECT flag

[Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>]

Hi Sakari,

On Monday 23 September 2013 22:57:02 Sakari Ailus wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:54:22PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > @@ -248,21 +250,46 @@ __must_check int
> > > media_entity_pipeline_start(struct media_entity *entity,
> > >  		if (!entity->ops || !entity->ops->link_validate)
> > >  			continue;
> > > 
> > > +		bitmap_zero(active, entity->num_pads);
> > > +		bitmap_fill(has_no_links, entity->num_pads);
> > > +
> > >  		for (i = 0; i < entity->num_links; i++) {
> > >  			struct media_link *link = &entity->links[i];
> > > -
> > > -			/* Is this pad part of an enabled link? */
> > > -			if (!(link->flags & MEDIA_LNK_FL_ENABLED))
> > > -				continue;
> > > -
> > > -			/* Are we the sink or not? */
> > > -			if (link->sink->entity != entity)
> > > +			struct media_pad *pad = link->sink->entity == entity
> > > +				? link->sink : link->source;
> > 
> > What about aligning the ? to the = ? With that change,
> 
> How about to the beginning of the next operand rather than "="?
> 
> (Think of adding parentheses around the rvalue of "=".)
> 
> I think it's fine as it was, but if it's to be changed then it should be
> aligned to link->sink->entity IMHO. :-)

My preference goes for aligning the ? under the =, but I agree it's not 
logical from an rvalue point of view :-) I would favor aligning the ? under 
the l of link, but enough bikeshedding for now, please pick whichever solution 
you prefer :-)

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart