Hi Marek,
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 11:47 AM Marek Szyprowski
<m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Maxime,
>
> On 27.04.2022 16:34, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 01:40:31PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 1:24 PM Paul Kocialkowski
> >> <paul.kocialkowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> On Thu 21 Apr 22, 10:59, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> >>>> On Thu 21 Apr 22, 10:23, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 01:15:54PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
> >>>>>> + Linus
> >>>>>> + Marek
> >>>>>> + Laurent
> >>>>>> + Robert
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 4:40 AM Bjorn Andersson
> >>>>>> <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Commit '80253168dbfd ("drm: of: Lookup if child node has panel or
> >>>>>>> bridge")' attempted to simplify the case of expressing a simple panel
> >>>>>>> under a DSI controller, by assuming that the first non-graph child node
> >>>>>>> was a panel or bridge.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Unfortunately for non-trivial cases the first child node might not be a
> >>>>>>> panel or bridge. Examples of this can be a aux-bus in the case of
> >>>>>>> DisplayPort, or an opp-table represented before the panel node.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In these cases the reverted commit prevents the caller from ever finding
> >>>>>>> a reference to the panel.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This reverts commit '80253168dbfd ("drm: of: Lookup if child node has
> >>>>>>> panel or bridge")', in favor of using an explicit graph reference to the
> >>>>>>> panel in the trivial case as well.
> >>>>>> This eventually breaks many child-based devm_drm_of_get_bridge
> >>>>>> switched drivers. Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed to
> >>>>>> succeed in those use cases as well?
> >>>>> I guess we could create a new helper for those, like
> >>>>> devm_drm_of_get_bridge_with_panel, or something.
> >>>> Oh wow I feel stupid for not thinking about that.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yeah I agree that it seems like the best option.
> >>> Should I prepare a patch with such a new helper?
> >>>
> >>> The idea would be to keep drm_of_find_panel_or_bridge only for the of graph
> >>> case and add one for the child node case, maybe:
> >>> drm_of_find_child_panel_or_bridge.
> >>>
> >>> I really don't have a clear idea of which driver would need to be switched
> >>> over though. Could someone (Jagan?) let me know where it would be needed?
> >> sun6i_mipi_dsi
> > It doesn't look like sun6i_mipi_dsi is using devm_drm_of_get_bridge at all?
> >
> >> exynos_drm_dsi
> > If you reference 711c7adc4687, I don't see why we would need to switch
> > it back to the old behaviour. It wasn't iterating over its child node
> > before, so what does the switch to drm_of_get_bridge broke exactly?
>
> It broke getting the panel if it is a direct child of the DSI device
> node. It worked before because it used following code:
>
> dsi->panel = of_drm_find_panel(device->dev.of_node);
>
> which got replaced by devm_drm_of_get_bridge().
Yes, we need to revert that change back to find the individual panel
and bridge. I'm preparing a patch for it.
Jagan.
