On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 at 13:07, Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Let me send a (non-tested) patch, switching to drm_bridge_connector, then you can probably test both of them -- With best wishes Dmitry
