On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 at 19:57, Carl Vanderlip <quic_carlv@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/5/2024 4:38 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 at 02:04, Carl Vanderlip <quic_carlv@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/5/2024 3:34 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c
> >>> index 50b65ffc24b1..ef57586fbeca 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c
> >>> @@ -969,6 +969,37 @@ static int add_components_mdp(struct device *master_dev,
> >>> return 0;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> +#if !IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_DRM_MSM_MDP5) || !IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_DRM_MSM_DPU)
> >>> +bool msm_disp_drv_should_bind(struct device *dev, bool mdp5_driver)
> >>> +{
> >>> + /* If just a single driver is enabled, use it no matter what */
> >>> + return true;
> >>> +}
> >>
> >> This will cause both MDP/DPU probes to return -ENODEV, rather than
> >> select the enabled one.
> >
> > No. The code (e.g. for DPU) is:
> >
> > if (!msm_disp_drv_should_bind(&pdev->dev, true))
> > return -ENODEV;
> >
> > So the driver returns -ENODEV if msm_disp_drv_should_bind() returns
> > false. Which is logical from the function name point of view.
> >
>
> but msm_disp_drv_should_bind() is returning true in the #if !REACHABLE()
> case?
>
> at minimum the comment is incorrect since returning true causes the
> driver to NOT be used.
No. Returning _false_ causes the driver to not be used.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
