AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 於
2022年1月28日 週五 下午5:13寫道：
>
> Il 27/01/22 16:46, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno ha scritto:
> > Il 27/01/22 16:21, Chun-Kuang Hu ha scritto:
> >> Hi, Angelo:
> >>
> >> AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 於
> >> 2022年1月27日 週四 下午10:36寫道：
> >>>
> >>> DRM bridge drivers are now attaching their DSI device at probe time,
> >>> which requires us to register our DSI host in order to let the bridge
> >>> to probe: this recently started producing an endless -EPROBE_DEFER
> >>> loop on some machines that are using external bridges, like the
> >>> parade-ps8640, found on the ACER Chromebook R13.
> >>>
> >>> Now that the DSI hosts/devices probe sequence is documented, we can
> >>> do adjustments to the mtk_dsi driver as to both fix now and make sure
> >>> to avoid this situation in the future: for this, following what is
> >>> documented in drm_bridge.c, move the mtk_dsi component_add() to the
> >>> mtk_dsi_ops.attach callback and delete it in the detach callback;
> >>> keeping in mind that we are registering a drm_bridge for our DSI,
> >>> which is only used/attached if the DSI Host is bound, it wouldn't
> >>> make sense to keep adding our bridge at probe time (as it would
> >>> be useless to have it if mtk_dsi_ops.attach() fails!), so also move
> >>> that one to the dsi host attach function (and remove it in detach).
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: 209264a85707 ("drm/bridge: Document the probe issue with MIPI-DSI bridges")
> >>
> >> The fixed tag should indicate the patch which cause the bug, but why a
> >> patch just adding document would cause bug?
> >> So no any patch cause bug? This patch just want to prevent a possible bug?
> >>
> >
> > I think you've missed my previous message on v2, so I will paste it here:
> >
> > unfortunately I couldn't find a valid commit for a Fixes tag. This
> > started being an issue at some point, when the DRM was changed to
> > adhere to the documented probe sequence: the MediaTek DSI driver was
> > not the only one that got broken/affected by these changes.
> >
> > If you have any advice on which commit should be tagged, I'm open for
> > any kind of suggestion.
> >
> >
> > I tried to check on other drivers which got fixed for the same behavior,
> > for example drm/msm, but none of them had a Fixes tag.
> > When the DRM got changed to adhere to this sequence, some drm/bridge
> > drivers were also changed; this has created some incompatibilities with
> > some drm drivers, including drm/msm and drm/mediatek.
> >
> > This commit is not fixing a latent bug that was introduced in drm/mediatek
> > but rather one that was induced by the new, fixed, probe flow that got
> > recently documented - and to which drivers should adhere; failing to adhere
> > to that will produce an endless -EPROBE_DEFER loop, due to other drivers
> > (as mentioned, for example drm/bridge drivers) having been changed to use
> > that probe sequence.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Angelo
> >
>
> I've been thinking about another solution to this issue.
>
> Would it be fine if I send a v4 that removes the Fixes tag, but adds the following?
>
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx # v5.15+
It's ok to me. According to the documented format [1], I think this should be
Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 5.15.x
[1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.16/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
Regards,
Chun-Kuang.
>
> >> Regards,
> >> Chun-Kuang.
> >>
> >>> Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Jagan Teki <jagan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_dsi.c | 167 +++++++++++++++--------------
> >>> 1 file changed, 84 insertions(+), 83 deletions(-)
> >>>
>
>
> --
> AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
> Software Engineer
>
> Collabora Ltd.
> Platinum Building, St John's Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS, UK
> Registered in England & Wales, no. 5513718
