Hi Sam, Laurent,
On 22-07-20, 16:14, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > +static int lt9611_bridge_attach(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
> > > + enum drm_bridge_attach_flags flags)
> > > +{
> > > + struct lt9611 *lt9611 = bridge_to_lt9611(bridge);
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + if (!(flags & DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR)) {
> > > + dev_err(lt9611->dev, "Fix bridge driver to make connector optional!");
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > + }
> >
> > This should say that the display driver should be fixed.
> > If a display driver expects this bridge to create the connector
> > it would not work.
>
> Actually, for new bridge drivers, connector creation should be optional
> from the start. We don't want a failure in that case, the feature should
> be implemented.
Yes this is causing issues for me now !. The patch 4/4 adds support in
msm/dsi but causes regression on qualcomm laptops with ti-sn65dsi86 eDP
bridge. I tried to fix that up with changes like Laurent has done for
adv7511, but it hasnt worked yet for me (remote debug of this is bit
painful)
So I am going to drop patch 4 from this series and add support for both
DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR set and cleared (like we have in adv7511)
so that it can work in both cases, while I fix all bridge uses of
msm/dsi and then we can drop these. Does that sound okay to you folks?
--
~Vinod
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
