[PATCHv6 7/8] drm/i915/histogram: Histogram changes for Display 20+

[Murthy, Arun R]

> > > > +static void write_iet(struct intel_display *display, enum pipe pipe,
> > > > +			      u32 *data)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	int i;
> > > > +
> > > > +	for (i = 0; i < HISTOGRAM_IET_LENGTH; i++) {
> > > > +		if (DISPLAY_VER(display) >= 20)
> > > > +			intel_de_rmw(display, DPST_IE_BIN(pipe),
> > > > +				     DPST_IE_BIN_DATA_MASK,
> > > > +				     DPST_IE_BIN_DATA(data[i]));
> > > > +		else
> > > > +			intel_de_rmw(display, DPST_BIN(pipe),
> > > > +				     DPST_BIN_DATA_MASK,
> > > > +				     DPST_BIN_DATA(data[i]));
> > > > +
> > > > +		drm_dbg_atomic(display->drm, "iet_lut[%d]=%x\n",
> > > > +			       i, data[i]);
> > > > +	}
> > >
> > > This looks more clean according to me if (DISPLAY_VER(display) >=
> > > 20) {
> > >     register_base = DPST_IE_BIN(pipe);
> > >     data_mask = DPST_IE_BIN_DATA_MASK;
> > >     data_temp = DPST_IE_BIN_DATA(data[i]); } else {
> > >     register_base = DPST_BIN(pipe);
> > >     data_mask = DPST_BIN_DATA_MASK;
> > >     data_temp = DPST_BIN_DATA(data[i]); }  intel_de_rmw(display,
> > > register_base, data_mask, data_temp);
> > >   drm_dbg_atomic(display->drm, "iet_lut[%d]=%x\n", i, data[i]);
> > >
> >
> > With the above code snippet data_temp will have to be in the for loop
> > so as to get the bit mapped value of data[i]
> >
> 
> Yes the  whole code snippet will be inside the loop itself
> 
In that case I don't see any advantage of this over the present code.
If you still insist will do the necessary changes.

Thanks and Regards,
Arun R Murthy
--------------------