On 22/06/24 17:49, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > 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. > Thanks Dmitry! However, would it be okay if I instead add another patch that makes 2 versions of the "tc_edp_bridge_funcs", say "tc_dpi_edp_bridge_funcs" and "tc_dsi_edp_bridge_funcs", that have all the same function hooks except for the .edid_read()? The dsi edid_read() will remain the same, and Tomi's patch - patch 2/2 - will only fix the dpi version of the edid_read()? The bridge already has the capability to distinguish a DSI input from a DPI input. This can be leveraged to decide which set of functions need to be used without any major changes. Regards Aradhya
