Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] drm/msm: add a kernel param to select between MDP5 and DPU drivers

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 1/8/2024 11:07 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 at 19:57, Carl Vanderlip <quic_carlv@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 1/5/2024 4:38 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 at 02:04, Carl Vanderlip <quic_carlv@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 1/5/2024 3:34 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c
index 50b65ffc24b1..ef57586fbeca 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c
@@ -969,6 +969,37 @@ static int add_components_mdp(struct device *master_dev,
        return 0;
    }

+#if !IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_DRM_MSM_MDP5) || !IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_DRM_MSM_DPU)
+bool msm_disp_drv_should_bind(struct device *dev, bool mdp5_driver)
+{
+     /* If just a single driver is enabled, use it no matter what */
+     return true;
+}

This will cause both MDP/DPU probes to return -ENODEV, rather than
select the enabled one.

No. The code (e.g. for DPU) is:

         if (!msm_disp_drv_should_bind(&pdev->dev, true))
                  return -ENODEV;

So the driver returns -ENODEV if msm_disp_drv_should_bind() returns
false. Which is logical from the function name point of view.


but msm_disp_drv_should_bind() is returning true in the #if !REACHABLE()
case?

at minimum the comment is incorrect since returning true causes the
driver to NOT be used.

No. Returning _false_ causes the driver to not be used.


Apologies... you are correct.

Reviewed-by: Carl Vanderlip <quic_carlv@xxxxxxxxxxx>

-Carl V.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Sparc]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux