On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 23:54 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
@@ -775,13 +781,18 @@ static void sunxi_lcdc_tcon1_mode_set(const struct ctfb_res_modes *mode,
clk_delay = sunxi_lcdc_get_clk_delay(mode, 1); writel(SUNXI_LCDC_TCON1_CTRL_ENABLE |
SUNXI_LCDC_TCON1_CTRL_INTERLACE(mode->vmode == FB_VMODE_INTERLACED) |
I think this would be clearer if SUNXI_LCDC_TCON1_CTRL_INTERLACE was actually the enable bit (perhaps with _ENABLE on the name), rather than a macro which takes a boolean and returns 0 or the single bit, so you could just write mode->vmode == FB_VMODE_INTERLACED ? SUNXI_LCDC_TCON1_CTRL_INTERLACE : 0 (in whichever wrapping style you prefer).
I think the macro is the bit style is more common in this code for boolean options too, we mainly use the macro-with-argument style for fields with more than 1 bit to them.
But ultimately the code is correct as you have it so either way as you prefer:
Acked-by: Ian Campbell ijc@hellion.org.uk
Although if you want to keep it the way it is then perhaps the macro sh ould have !!n instead of just n, to prevent surprises if someone uses a bitop rather than a full boolean op as an argument?
@@ -1240,6 +1245,9 @@ void *video_hw_init(void)
return NULL;}
+> > printf("Setting up a %dx%d %s console\n", mode->xres, +> > mode->yres, sunxi_get_mon_desc(sunxi_display.monitor));
Is it worth including the string "interlaced" here when appropriate? (Ack stands either way)
Ian.