[PATCH 2/2] drm/ast: Support AST2500

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 17:33 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:
> The above seems like a _lot_ of unrelated rework. Keep the
> refactoring
> separate ?
> New code seems to assume that only(?) -1 is returned on error, yet we
> do < 0.
> This will come to bite you/others as the tests are extended/reworked.

Not sure what you mean.

I made the error return consistent yes, using -1.

< 0 is a reasonable way to test this (and probably marginally more
efficient than comparing against -1) , the "good" values are always
in the range 0..ffff .

I did the refactoring in that patch because we have 4 functions doing
roughly the same thing and the 2500 patch was adding 2 more.

I could do a first patch just changing the existing code I suppose...

Ben.