On 17-Jun-24 13:41, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 07:40:32AM GMT, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 16.02.24 15:57, Marek Vasut wrote: >>> On 2/16/24 10:10, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >>>> Ok. Does anyone have a worry that these patches make the situation >>>> worse for the DSI case than it was before? Afaics, if the DSI lanes >>>> are not set up early enough by the DSI host, the driver would break >>>> with and without these patches. >>>> >>>> These do fix the driver for DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR and DPI, so >>>> I'd like to merge these unless these cause a regression with the DSI >>>> case. >>> >>> 1/2 looks good to me, go ahead and apply . Isn't there any way for the second patch to move forward as well though? The bridge device (under DPI to (e)DP mode) cannot really work without it, and the patches have been pending idle for a long time. =) >> >> My local patches still apply on top of 6.10-rc4, so I don't think this >> ever happened. What's still holding up this long-pending fix (at least >> for our devices)? > > Neither of the patches contains Fixes tags. If the first patch fixes an > issue in previous kernels, please consider following the stable process. > > If we are unsure about the second patch, please send the first patch > separately, adding proper tags. > Thanks Dmitry! I can send the patches again with the required fixes tags (or just patch-1 if we cannot do anything about patch-2). -- Regards Aradhya
