[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 02/14] drm/i915/dp: return errors from rate_to_index()

[Manasi Navare]

Won't it make more sense to squash this patch with Patch 01 in this series?
When i was reading Patch 1, I almost was going to comment about
handling the case where we dont find the index..

Regards
Manasi

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 05:59:02PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> We shouldn't silently use the first element if we can't find the rate
> we're looking for. Make rate_to_index() more generally useful, and
> fallback to the first element in the caller, with a big warning.
> 
> Cc: Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare at intel.com>
> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 13 +++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> index 88c708b07c70..0e200a37b75b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> @@ -1544,9 +1544,9 @@ static int rate_to_index(const int *rates, int len, int rate)
>  
>  	for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
>  		if (rate == rates[i])
> -			break;
> +			return i;
>  
> -	return i;
> +	return -1;
>  }
>  
>  int
> @@ -1564,8 +1564,13 @@ intel_dp_max_link_rate(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>  
>  int intel_dp_rate_select(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, int rate)
>  {
> -	return rate_to_index(intel_dp->sink_rates, intel_dp->num_sink_rates,
> -			     rate);
> +	int i = rate_to_index(intel_dp->sink_rates, intel_dp->num_sink_rates,
> +			      rate);
> +
> +	if (WARN_ON(i < 0))
> +		i = 0;
> +
> +	return i;
>  }
>  
>  void intel_dp_compute_rate(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, int port_clock,
> -- 
> 2.1.4
>