Re: [PATCH v4 04/15] drm/edid: Use new encoded panel id style for quirks matching

From: Doug Anderson
Date: Tue Sep 14 2021 - 14:31:29 EST


On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 11:16 AM Jani Nikula
<jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Sep 2021, Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > In the patch ("drm/edid: Allow the querying/working with the panel ID
> > from the EDID") we introduced a different way of working with the
> > panel ID stored in the EDID. Let's use this new way for the quirks
> > code.
> >
> > Advantages of the new style:
> > * Smaller data structure size. Saves 4 bytes per panel.
> > * Iterate through quirks structure with just "==" instead of strncmp()
> > * In-kernel storage is more similar to what's stored in the EDID
> > itself making it easier to grok that they are referring to the same
> > value.
> >
> > The quirk table itself is arguably a bit less readable in the new
> > style but not a ton less and it feels like the above advantages make
> > up for it.
> I suppose you could pass vendor as a string to EDID_QUIRK() to retain
> better readability?

I would love to, but I couldn't figure out how to do this and have it
compile! Notably I need the compiler to be able to do math at compile
time to compute the final u32 to store in the init data. I don't think
the compiler can dereference strings (even constant strings) and do
math on the result at compile time.

I _think_ you could make it work with four-character codes (only
specifying 3 characters), AKA single-quoting something like 'AUO' but
I think four-character codes are not dealt with in a standard enough
way between compilers so they're not allowed in Linux.

If you like it better, I could do something like this:

#define ACR_CODE 'A', 'C', 'R'
#define AUO_CODE 'A', 'U', 'O'

...then I could refer to the #defines...

> Just bikeshedding, really. ;)

I'll take this comment (without any formal tags) as:

* You've seen this patch (and the previous ones) and wouldn't object
to it merging.

* You're not planning on any deeper review / testing, so I shouldn't
wait for more stuff from you before merging. Please yell if this is
not the case. I'm happy to wait but I don't want to wait if no further
review is planned.

In general I'm still planning to give this series at least another
week for comments before merging. ${SUBJECT} patch also is the only
one lacking any type of Review / Ack tags so I'll see if I can find
someone to give it something before merging, too.