On 14/04/2021 10:16, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Neil,
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 10:08:46AM +0200, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>> On 14/04/2021 10:06, Robert Foss wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 08:13, Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Le 13/04/2021 à 22:21, Robert Foss a écrit :
>>>>> Hey Neil & Phong,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for submitting this series!
>>>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +static const struct drm_bridge_funcs it66121_bridge_funcs = {
>>>>>> + .attach = it66121_bridge_attach,
>>>>>> + .enable = it66121_bridge_enable,
>>>>>> + .disable = it66121_bridge_disable,
>>>>>> + .mode_set = it66121_bridge_mode_set,
>>>>>> + .mode_valid = it66121_bridge_mode_valid,
>>>>>> + .detect = it66121_bridge_detect,
>>>>>> + .get_edid = it66121_bridge_get_edid,
>>>>>> + .atomic_get_output_bus_fmts = it66121_bridge_atomic_get_output_bus_fmts,
>>>>>> + .atomic_get_input_bus_fmts = it66121_bridge_atomic_get_input_bus_fmts,
>>>>>> +};
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to see an implementation of HPD, since it is supported by
>>>>> the hardware[1] (and required by the documentation). IRQ status bit 0
>>>>> seems to be the responsible for notifying us about hot plug detection
>>>>> events.
>>>>
>>>> It's implemented in the IRQ handler with the IT66121_INT_STATUS1_HPD_STATUS event.
>>>
>>> I didn't even get that far :)
>>>
>>> Either way, the HPD support should be exposed in drm_bridge_funcs
>>> (.hpd_enable, .hpd_disable (and possibly .hpd_notify)) and
>>> drm_bridge.ops (DRM_BRIDGE_OP_HPD).
>>
>> Indeed I forgot these calls in the NO_CONNECTOR implementation...
>
> For new bridges, you should no implement connector creation, only the
> DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR case should be supported.
>
Right, time to make a clean bridge-only implementation then !
Thanks for your feedbacks,
Neil
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
