On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Archit Taneja <architt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 12/02/2016 09:33 PM, Sean Paul wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Archit Taneja <architt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 12/02/2016 08:02 AM, zain wang wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> We will ignored PSR setting if panel not support it. So, in this case, >>>> we >>>> should >>>> return from analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr() without any error code. >>>> Let's retrun 0 instead of -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in >>>> analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr(). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: zain wang <wzz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c | 6 ++++-- >>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c >>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c >>>> index 6e0447f..0cb3695 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c >>>> @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ int analogix_dp_enable_psr(struct device *dev) >>>> struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc; >>>> >>>> if (!dp->psr_support) >>>> - return -EINVAL; >>>> + return 0; >>> >>> >>> >>> Looking at the rockchip analogix dp code, in analogix_dp_psr_set, the >>> worker >>> that calls >>> analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr isn't even if psr isn't enabled. So, the >>> bridge funcs >>> shouldn't be called in the first place. I think the error handling is >>> fine >>> to have >>> here. >>> >> >> Hi Archit, >> >> This was my first impression, too, and the complexity of the various >> psr abstraction layers don't help :) >> >> However, this code path will be hit if the source supports psr, but >> the sink doesn't. The rockchip_drm_psr code doesn't know if the sink >> supports psr, so it will end up calling this. > > > Okay, thanks for the explanation. The dev_warn() below still seems > unnecessary, right? > Yeah, one could make a case for dev_info (disclaimer: I have a high tolerance for noisy logs), but a warning does seem excessive. Sean > Archit > > >> >> Sean >> >> >>>> >>>> /* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ >>>> memset(&psr_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc)); >>>> @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ int analogix_dp_disable_psr(struct device *dev) >>>> struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc; >>>> >>>> if (!dp->psr_support) >>>> - return -EINVAL; >>>> + return 0; >>>> >>>> /* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ >>>> memset(&psr_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc)); >>>> @@ -878,6 +878,8 @@ static void analogix_dp_commit(struct >>>> analogix_dp_device *dp) >>>> dp->psr_support = analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr(dp); >>>> if (dp->psr_support) >>>> analogix_dp_enable_sink_psr(dp); >>>> + else >>>> + dev_warn(dp->dev, "Sink not support PSR\n"); >>> >>> >>> >>> This doesn't seem beneficial either. There seems to be a debug >>> print already in analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr which reports PSR >>> related info. >>> >>> Archit >>> >>>> } >>>> >>>> /* >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, >>> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project > > > -- > Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, > a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
