[U-Boot] [PATCH 4/5] sunxi: display: Add support for interlaced modes

[Ian Campbell]

On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 23:54 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> @@ -775,13 +781,18 @@ static void sunxi_lcdc_tcon1_mode_set(const
> struct ctfb_res_modes *mode,
>  
>  	clk_delay = sunxi_lcdc_get_clk_delay(mode, 1);
>  	writel(SUNXI_LCDC_TCON1_CTRL_ENABLE |
> +	       SUNXI_LCDC_TCON1_CTRL_INTERLACE(
> +			mode->vmode == FB_VMODE_INTERLACED) |

I think this would be clearer if SUNXI_LCDC_TCON1_CTRL_INTERLACE was
actually the enable bit (perhaps with _ENABLE on the name), rather than
a macro which takes a boolean and returns 0 or the single bit, so you
could just write
	mode->vmode == FB_VMODE_INTERLACED ? 
		SUNXI_LCDC_TCON1_CTRL_INTERLACE : 0
(in whichever wrapping style you prefer).

I think the macro is the bit style is more common in this code for
boolean options too, we mainly use the macro-with-argument style for
fields with more than 1 bit to them.

But ultimately the code is correct as you have it so either way as you
prefer:

Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ijc at hellion.org.uk>

Although if you want to keep it the way it is then perhaps the macro sh
ould have !!n instead of just n, to prevent surprises if someone uses a
bitop rather than a full boolean op as an argument?

@@ -1240,6 +1245,9 @@ void *video_hw_init(void)
>  		return NULL;
>  	}
>  
> +> 	> printf("Setting up a %dx%d %s console\n", mode->xres,
> +> 	>        mode->yres, sunxi_get_mon_desc(sunxi_display.monitor));

Is it worth including the string "interlaced" here when appropriate?
(Ack stands either way)

Ian.