On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Chen-Yu, > > On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Hi Chen-Yu, >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 8:22 PM, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Maxime Ripard >>>> <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 08:22:56AM +0000, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: >>>>>> On systems with 2 TCONs such as the A31, it is possible to demux the >>>>>> output of the TCONs to one encoder. >>>>>> >>>>>> Add support for this for the A31. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@xxxxxxxx> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_tcon.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_tcon.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_tcon.c >>>>>> index 7bf51abaee97..c949309d4285 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_tcon.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_tcon.c >>>>>> @@ -112,6 +112,21 @@ void sun4i_tcon_enable_vblank(struct sun4i_tcon *tcon, bool enable) >>>>>> } >>>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(sun4i_tcon_enable_vblank); >>>>>> >>>>>> +static struct sun4i_tcon *sun4i_get_first_tcon(struct drm_device *drm) >>>>> >>>>> Would that make sense to make it a bit more generic, and pass the id >>>>> to look for as an argument? >>>> >>>> The reason to look for TCON0 explicitly is to access the muxing registers, which >>>> are only available in TCON0. Other than that, there's nothing else >>>> shared between >>>> the two TCONs. So there's no particular reason to look for TCON1 explicitly. >>> >>> In that case: in the bizarre case where we're trying to use this mux >>> type and there is no TCON0, shouldn't we fail? >> >> It gives out a big warning, indicating something is wrong. If TCON0 is not found >> it is most likely your device tree is broken. There's nothing more the >> driver can do. >> Are you suggesting to return NULL in this case, and also do error >> handling in the >> callers? > > You're already returning -EINVAL for other failure cases, so a lack of > TCON0 might as well do the same. > >>> (Also, the code doesn't make sense if we have some TCON1 and TCON2 in >>> that order as it'll return TCON2) >> >> I'm guessing you want it to return NULL. > > I'm just pointing out the mismatch between getting the "first" TCON > and the actual behaviour. Makes sense. I've renamed it to "_get_tcon0" and added more comments on it's behavior. Also made it return NULL when tcon0 is not found. ChenYu _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
