On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 17:45, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 06:01:14PM +0200, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote: > > It is difficult for a user to know which of the i2c adapters is for which > > drm connector. This series addresses this problem. > > > > The idea is to have a symbolic link in connector's sysfs directory, e.g.: > > > > ls -l /sys/class/drm/card0-HDMI-A-1/ddc > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Jun 24 10:42 /sys/class/drm/card0-HDMI-A-1/ddc \ > > -> ../../../../soc/13880000.i2c/i2c-2 > > > > The user then knows that their card0-HDMI-A-1 uses i2c-2 and can e.g. run > > ddcutil: > > > > ddcutil -b 2 getvcp 0x10 > > VCP code 0x10 (Brightness ): current value = 90, max value = 100 > > > > The first patch in the series adds struct i2c_adapter pointer to struct > > drm_connector. If the field is used by a particular driver, then an > > appropriate symbolic link is created by the generic code, which is also added > > by this patch. > > > > The second patch is an example of how to convert a driver to this new scheme. > > > > v1..v2: > > > > - used fixed name "ddc" for the symbolic link in order to make it easy for > > userspace to find the i2c adapter > > > > v2..v3: > > > > - converted as many drivers as possible. > > > > PATCHES 3/22-22/22 SHOULD BE CONSIDERED RFC! > > There's a lot more drivers than this I think (i915 is absent as an > example, but there should be tons more). Why are those not possible? While I fully agree there are more drivers, at the same time I wonder. Is it a good idea to expect all of those to be fixed in one go and block patches addressing 15+ drivers? Personally I think it's reasonable to have this, alongside a TODO entry for other drivers. HTH Emil _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
