Hi,
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 02:22:33PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> The i2c handling in tfp410 driver, which handles converting parallel RGB
> to DVI, was changed in 958f2717b84e88bf833d996997fda8f73276f2af. The
commit summary should be added in () after commit hash. This would look
like:
'was changed in 958f271 (OMAPDSS: TFP410: pdata rewrite).'
> patch changed what value the driver considers as invalid/undefined.
> Before the patch 0 was the invalid value, but as 0 is a valid bus
^
missing comma (,) character here.
> number, the patch changed this to -1.
>
> However, the fact was missed that many board files do not define the bus
> number at all, thus it's left to 0. This causes the driver to fail to
> get the i2c bus, exiting from the driver's probe with an error, meaning
> that the DVI output does not work for those boards.
>
> This patch fixes the issue by changing the i2c_bus number field in the
> driver's platform data from u16 to int, and setting the bus number to -1
> in the board files for the boards that did not define the bus. The
> exception is devkit8000, for which the bus is set to 1, which is the
> correct bus for that board.
>
> The bug exists in v3.5+ kernels.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx>
> Reported-by: Thomas Weber <thomas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> [for v3.5, v3.6 stable kernels]
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This format is peculiar. Usually people use:
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # v3.5 v3.6
To be fair, the whole i2c_bus_num looks like a big hackery introduced by
the way panel drivers are written for OMAP DSS.
TFP410 is an I2C client, not an OMAPDSS client. After a quick look at
the driver, there's is no such thing as a DSS bus, so looks like you
should have an I2C driver for TFP410 and the whole DSS stuff should be
just a list of clients, but not a struct bus at all.
The fact that you have to pass the I2C bus number down to the panel
driver is already a big indication of how wrong this is, IMHO.
--
balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
