[PATCH 10/25] vmwgfx: Refactor common display unit functions to shared file

[Jakob Bornecrantz]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
<konrad.wilk at oracle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 04:10:06PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> From: Jakob Bornecrantz <jakob at vmware.com>
>>
>> More preparation for Screen Object support.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jakob Bornecrantz <jakob at vmware.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom at vmware.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c |  238 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.h |   31 ++++-
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_ldu.c |  268 ++---------------------------------
>>  3 files changed, 282 insertions(+), 255 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
>> index 68c6351..0c4179b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
>> @@ -1152,3 +1152,241 @@ u32 vmw_get_vblank_counter(struct drm_device *dev, int crtc)
>>  {
>>       return 0;
>>  }
>> +
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Small shared kms functions.
>> + */
>> +
>> +int vmw_du_update_layout(struct vmw_private *dev_priv, unsigned num,
>> +                      struct drm_vmw_rect *rects)
>> +{
>> +     struct drm_device *dev = dev_priv->dev;
>> +     struct vmw_display_unit *du;
>> +     struct drm_connector *con;
>> +     int i;
>> +
>> +     mutex_lock(&dev->mode_config.mutex);
>> +
>> +#if 0
>> +     DRM_INFO("%s: new layout ", __func__);
>> +     for (i = 0; i < (int)num; i++)
>
> Would it be easier to make 'i' be 'unsigned int' ?
>
>> +             DRM_INFO("(%i, %i %ux%u) ", rects[i].x, rects[i].y,
>> +                      rects[i].w, rects[i].h);
>> +     DRM_INFO("\n");
>> +#else
>> +     (void)i;
>
> ?
> What does that do?
>
> [edit: Ah, you are moving the code, so the patch looks fine then.
> Thought I am still confused by this invocation - perhaps it makes sense
> to clean this part of the code in another patch?]

The "i" variable is only used in the commented code, and the (void)i; statement
hides the "unused variable error".

Cheers Jakob.