Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 10 May 2019 19:00:31 +0300
From:   Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To:     Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com>
Cc:     Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
        Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        Emil Velikov <emil.velikov@collabora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] drm/fourcc: Pass the format_info pointer to
 drm_format_plane_cpp
Message-ID: <20190510160031.GM24299@intel.com>
References: <27b0041c7977402df4a087c78d2849ffe51c9f1c.1557486447.git-series.maxime.ripard@bootlin.com>
 <32aa13e53dbc98a90207fd290aa8e79f785fb11e.1557486447.git-series.maxime.ripard@bootlin.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <32aa13e53dbc98a90207fd290aa8e79f785fb11e.1557486447.git-series.maxime.ripard@bootlin.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 01:08:49PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> So far, the drm_format_plane_cpp function was operating on the format's
> fourcc and was doing a lookup to retrieve the drm_format_info structure and
> return the cpp.
> 
> However, this is inefficient since in most cases, we will have the
> drm_format_info pointer already available so we shouldn't have to perform a
> new lookup. Some drm_fourcc functions also already operate on the
> drm_format_info pointer for that reason, so the API is quite inconsistent
> there.
> 
> Let's follow the latter pattern and remove the extra lookup while being a
> bit more consistent. In order to be extra consistent, also rename that
> function to drm_format_info_plane_cpp and to a static function in the
> header to match the current policy.

Is there any point keeping the function at all?
It's just info->cpp[i] no?

-- 
Ville Syrj?l?
Intel