On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 05:16:58PM GMT, Aradhya Bhatia wrote: > > > 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). The problem with the second patch is that it get mixed reviews. I can ack the first patch, but for the second one I'd need a confirmation from somebody else. I'll go on and apply the first patch later today. -- With best wishes Dmitry
