? 2016/12/6 1:28, Sean Paul ??: > On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Archit Taneja <architt at codeaurora.org> wrote: >> >> On 12/02/2016 09:33 PM, Sean Paul wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Archit Taneja <architt at codeaurora.org> >>> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On 12/02/2016 08:02 AM, zain wang wrote: >>>>> >>>>> We will ignored PSR setting if panel not support it. So, in this case, >>>>> we >>>>> should >>>>> return from analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr() without any error code. >>>>> Let's retrun 0 instead of -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in >>>>> analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr(). >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: zain wang <wzz at rock-chips.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c | 6 ++++-- >>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c >>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c >>>>> index 6e0447f..0cb3695 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c >>>>> @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ int analogix_dp_enable_psr(struct device *dev) >>>>> struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc; >>>>> >>>>> if (!dp->psr_support) >>>>> - return -EINVAL; >>>>> + return 0; >>>> >>>> >>>> Looking at the rockchip analogix dp code, in analogix_dp_psr_set, the >>>> worker >>>> that calls >>>> analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr isn't even if psr isn't enabled. So, the >>>> bridge funcs >>>> shouldn't be called in the first place. I think the error handling is >>>> fine >>>> to have >>>> here. >>>> >>> Hi Archit, >>> >>> This was my first impression, too, and the complexity of the various >>> psr abstraction layers don't help :) >>> >>> However, this code path will be hit if the source supports psr, but >>> the sink doesn't. The rockchip_drm_psr code doesn't know if the sink >>> supports psr, so it will end up calling this. >> >> Okay, thanks for the explanation. The dev_warn() below still seems >> unnecessary, right? >> > Yeah, one could make a case for dev_info (disclaimer: I have a high > tolerance for noisy logs), but a warning does seem excessive. > > Sean OK, I will remove the dev_warn since there is a dev_dbg for the same case. > >> Archit >> >> >>> Sean >>> >>> >>>>> /* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ >>>>> memset(&psr_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc)); >>>>> @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ int analogix_dp_disable_psr(struct device *dev) >>>>> struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc; >>>>> >>>>> if (!dp->psr_support) >>>>> - return -EINVAL; >>>>> + return 0; >>>>> >>>>> /* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ >>>>> memset(&psr_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc)); >>>>> @@ -878,6 +878,8 @@ static void analogix_dp_commit(struct >>>>> analogix_dp_device *dp) >>>>> dp->psr_support = analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr(dp); >>>>> if (dp->psr_support) >>>>> analogix_dp_enable_sink_psr(dp); >>>>> + else >>>>> + dev_warn(dp->dev, "Sink not support PSR\n"); >>>> >>>> >>>> This doesn't seem beneficial either. There seems to be a debug >>>> print already in analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr which reports PSR >>>> related info. >>>> >>>> Archit >>>> >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> /* >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, >>>> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project >> >> -- >> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, >> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project > _______________________________________________ > Linux-rockchip mailing list > Linux-rockchip at lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip > > >
