On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 03:07:10PM GMT, Aradhya Bhatia wrote: > > > 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. I'd prefer if somebody with the DSI setup can ack / test the second patch. -- With best wishes Dmitry
