Hi Rob and Doug, On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 11:32:02AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote: > On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 1:08 PM Doug Anderson wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 12:26 PM Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 04:52:50PM -0700, Rob Clark wrote: > > > > From: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Slightly awkward to fish out the display_info when we aren't creating > > > > own connector. But I don't see an obvious better way. > > > > > > We need a bit more than this, to support the NO_CONNECTOR case, the > > > bridge has to implement a few extra operations, and set the bridge .ops > > > field. I've submitted two patches to do so a while ago: > > > > > > - [RFC PATCH 08/11] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Implement bridge connector operations ([1]) > > > > Rob asked me about this over IRC, so if he left it out and it's needed > > then it's my fault. However, I don't believe it's needed until your > > series making this bridge chip support full DP. For the the eDP case > > the bridge chip driver in ToT no longer queries the EDID itself. It > > simply provides an AUX bus to the panel driver and the panel driver > > queries the EDID. I think that means we don't need to add > > DRM_BRIDGE_OP_EDID, right? That's right. > > I was also wondering if in the full DP case we should actually model > > the physical DP jack as a drm_bridge and have it work the same way. It > > would get probed via the DP AUX bus just like a panel. I seem to > > remember Stephen Boyd was talking about modeling the DP connector as a > > drm_bridge because it would allow us to handle the fact that some TCPC > > chips could only support HBR2 whereas others could support HBR3. Maybe > > it would end up being a fairly elegant solution? Physical connectors are already handled as bridges, see drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/display-connector.c. I however don't think it should handle EDID retrieval, because that's really not an operation implemented by the connector itself. > > > - [RFC PATCH 09/11] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Make connector creation optional ([2]) > > > > > > The second patch is similar to the first half of this patch, but misses > > > the cleanup code. I'll try to rebase this and resubmit, but it may take > > > a bit of time. > > > > Whoops! You're right that Rob's patch won't work at all because we'll > > just hit the "Fix bridge driver to make connector optional!" case. I > > should have noticed that. :( > > Yes, indeed.. once I fix that, I get no display.. > > Not sure if Laurent is still working on his series, otherwise I can > try to figure out what bridge ops are missing I am, but too slowly. I don't mind fast-tracking the changes you need though. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
