On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 12:17:28PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 02:10:46PM +0200, [email protected] wrote: > > + if (!check_digital_port_conflicts(dev)) { > > Being picky: > > if not check digital port for conflicts, report error. > > It reads backwards. Perhaps > > if (conflicting_digital_port_config(dev)) return -EINVAL; > > > + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("rejecting conflicting digital port > > configuration\n"); > > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > > + } > > Regarding getting more information back to the user about the error > message, we could with have a connector/crtc property, a procfs file or > an ioctl to grab a string describing the last error. A LastError > property blob might be the most convenient. Though I am not sure how > outlandish this idea is.
It's an unsolved problem since right now we don't tell anyone ever why something doesn't work. The current solution is the check-only mode of atomic where you can quickly go through a bunch of options and then pick the most suitable using heuristics (either user picking what he likes or in the code). Queued for -next, thanks for the patch. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
