On 2/21/22 10:01, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 03:26:40AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 2/18/22 18:34, Lucas Stach wrote:
Hi
[...]
drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/tc358767.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/tc358767.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/tc358767.c
index 522c2c4d8514f..01d11adee6c74 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/tc358767.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/tc358767.c
@@ -1289,6 +1289,31 @@ static bool tc_bridge_mode_fixup(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
return true;
}
+static int tc_edp_common_atomic_check(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
Drop the edp in the name here? Later in the series you call this
function from the DPI code, so this breaks the nice clean naming
separation from patch 1.
+ struct drm_bridge_state *bridge_state,
+ struct drm_crtc_state *crtc_state,
+ struct drm_connector_state *conn_state,
+ const unsigned int max_khz)
+{
+ tc_bridge_mode_fixup(bridge, &crtc_state->mode,
+ &crtc_state->adjusted_mode);
+
+ if (crtc_state->adjusted_mode.clock > max_khz)
+ crtc_state->adjusted_mode.clock = max_khz;
I don't think this is correct. The adjusted most is just for minor
adjustments if the bridge can not fully match the mode. If userspace
supplies a invalid high modeclock I think it would be better to fail
the atomic check -> return -EINVAL
Maxime was telling me that returning -EINVAL from atomic_check is weird, so
maybe we should also wait for his opinion on this part.
That was in a completely different context?
Our discussion was about how you would propagate clock constraints
across a pipeline, and I was telling you that it would be weird to
return -EINVAL for a mode that was reported on a connector as supported
(or even preferred).
My argument was for mode_valid to filter them out.
If your clock is way above what you can support on your device, then
returning an error in atomic_check is the right thing to do.
Ah OK
