Hi,
On Sun, Feb 6, 2022 at 7:44 AM Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Move away from the deprecated enable/diable operations in
> drm_bridge_funcs and enable atomic use.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Robert Foss <robert.foss@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jonas Karlman <jonas@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 21 +++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> index ba136a188be7..d681ab68205c 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> @@ -796,7 +796,8 @@ ti_sn_bridge_mode_valid(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
> return MODE_OK;
> }
>
> -static void ti_sn_bridge_disable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
> +static void ti_sn_bridge_atomic_disable(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
> + struct drm_bridge_state *old_bridge_state)
> {
> struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata = bridge_to_ti_sn65dsi86(bridge);
>
> @@ -1055,7 +1056,8 @@ static int ti_sn_link_training(struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata, int dp_rate_idx,
> return ret;
> }
>
> -static void ti_sn_bridge_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
> +static void ti_sn_bridge_atomic_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
> + struct drm_bridge_state *old_bridge_state)
> {
> struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata = bridge_to_ti_sn65dsi86(bridge);
> const char *last_err_str = "No supported DP rate";
> @@ -1124,7 +1126,8 @@ static void ti_sn_bridge_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
> VSTREAM_ENABLE);
> }
>
> -static void ti_sn_bridge_pre_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
> +static void ti_sn_bridge_atomic_pre_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
> + struct drm_bridge_state *old_bridge_state)
> {
> struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata = bridge_to_ti_sn65dsi86(bridge);
>
> @@ -1137,7 +1140,8 @@ static void ti_sn_bridge_pre_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
> usleep_range(100, 110);
> }
>
> -static void ti_sn_bridge_post_disable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
> +static void ti_sn_bridge_atomic_post_disable(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
> + struct drm_bridge_state *old_bridge_state)
> {
> struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata = bridge_to_ti_sn65dsi86(bridge);
>
> @@ -1158,10 +1162,11 @@ static const struct drm_bridge_funcs ti_sn_bridge_funcs = {
> .attach = ti_sn_bridge_attach,
> .detach = ti_sn_bridge_detach,
> .mode_valid = ti_sn_bridge_mode_valid,
> - .pre_enable = ti_sn_bridge_pre_enable,
> - .enable = ti_sn_bridge_enable,
> - .disable = ti_sn_bridge_disable,
> - .post_disable = ti_sn_bridge_post_disable,
> + .atomic_pre_enable = ti_sn_bridge_atomic_pre_enable,
> + .atomic_enable = ti_sn_atomic_bridge_enable,
> + .atomic_disable = ti_sn_atomic_bridge_disable,
> + .atomic_post_disable = ti_sn_bridge_post_disable,
Compiler doesn't like the fact that you are inconsistent about whether
it's "atomic_bridge" or "bridge_atomic". Probably should settle on
"bridge_atomic"? ...and the "post_disable" needs "atomic" in the
name...
> + DRM_BRIDGE_STATE_OPS,
Wow, is it really that simple? I guess it seems to work OK...
Since I don't actually know tons about atomic and whether this is
enough, consider my Reviewed-by tag to be pretty weak. That being
said, this _seems_ right to me?
So once it compiles then I'm fine w/ my (weak) Reviewed-by and my Tested-by.
-Doug
