From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: From: Laurent Pinchart To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Laurent Pinchart , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Andy Yan , Archit Taneja , Fabio Estevam , Heiko Stuebner , Jose Abreu , Kieran Bingham , Mark Yao , Philipp Zabel , Ulrich Hecht , Vladimir Zapolskiy , linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/22] drm: bridge: dw-hdmi: Refactor hdmi_phy_configure resolution parameter Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 17:51:18 +0200 Message-ID: <33654692.3e443XGJfA@avalon> In-Reply-To: <20161202141808.GC14217@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> References: <1480635817-1258-1-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> <1480635817-1258-12-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> <20161202141808.GC14217@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-ID: Hi Russell, On Friday 02 Dec 2016 14:18:08 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 01:43:26AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > From: Kieran Bingham > > > > The current code hard codes the call of hdmi_phy_configure() to be 8bpp > > and provides extraneous error checking to verify that this hardcoded > > value is correct. > > > > Simplify the passing of the data by setting the parameter to be of the > > enum type it represents rather than converting and then verifying the > > value. This will allow the compiler to check the value is acceptable > > based on the type, and remove the dead code that we currently have. > > I think you're expecting too much of the compiler there. There's no > requirement for the compiler to check that an enum type is passed one > of it's defined values. You're right. Given that the current driver hardcodes the resolution value to 8bpp, how about just dropping the argument ? We can always add it back later if/when needed. > Try building this and see if it even produces a warning: > > enum foo { > FOO_1, > FOO_2, > }; > > int func(enum foo foo) > { > return foo; > } > > int test_1(void) > { > return func(FOO_1); > } > > int test_2(void) > { > return func(5); > } -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart