On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Archit Taneja <architt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> 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. 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |