On Mon, 23 May 2022 at 11:58, Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 5/23/22 11:40, Robert Foss wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 May 2022 at 09:57, Lucas Stach <l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Am Donnerstag, dem 19.05.2022 um 01:38 +0200 schrieb Marek Vasut:
> >>> Handle empty data-lanes = < >; property, which translates to
> >>> dsi_lanes = 0 as invalid.
>
> [...]
>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi83.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi83.c
> >>> index d64d4385188dd..dc65f424e7f3c 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi83.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi83.c
> >>> @@ -585,7 +585,7 @@ static int sn65dsi83_parse_dt(struct sn65dsi83 *ctx, enum sn65dsi83_model model)
> >>> ctx->host_node = of_graph_get_remote_port_parent(endpoint);
> >>> of_node_put(endpoint);
> >>>
> >>> - if (ctx->dsi_lanes < 0 || ctx->dsi_lanes > 4) {
> >>> + if (ctx->dsi_lanes <= 0 || ctx->dsi_lanes > 4) {
> >>> ret = -EINVAL;
> >>> goto err_put_node;
> >>> }
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Applied to drm-misc-next.
>
> This was already applied to drm-misc-next-fixes , since this is a fix
> for something that was already in release . The conflict will resolve
> itself easily though ?
Ah, I didn't realize. I'm not sure if it will resolve itself or not.
But I think either it is reverted in drm-misc-next now, or we wait for
an issue to crop up. I think either way is acceptable, but waiting
maybe causes less churn. So unless someone has another preference,
let's wait and see if a conflict arises.
