Hi, Am Montag, 24. Juni 2024, 11:49:04 CEST schrieb Dmitry Baryshkov: > 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. > > Now that my DSI-DP setup works apparently without issue I could test patch 2. Since my setup does not use DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR (running on drivers/gpu/drm/mxsfb/lcdif_drv.c), I can only say there is no regression. Best regards, Alexander -- TQ-Systems GmbH | Mühlstraße 2, Gut Delling | 82229 Seefeld, Germany Amtsgericht München, HRB 105018 Geschäftsführer: Detlef Schneider, Rüdiger Stahl, Stefan Schneider http://www.tq-group.com/
