Hi Heikki,
On 25-02-19 16:49, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 01:56:37PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
If our port-partner supports both DP-only operation (pin-assignment C)
and multi-func operation (pin-assignment D) and we only support
pin-assignment D and the port-partner prefers DP-only mode, then
before this commit we would and up masking out pin-assignment D from
the available pin-assignments and fail to pick a pin-assignment.
Instead only mask out the multi-func pin-assignments if we support
dp-only pin-assignments, so that we correctly fall-back to a multi-func
pin-assignment in this case (by picking pin-assignment D).
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>
Should this be handled as a fix?
AFAIK they are no users if this yet, until we've agreement
on the DT bindings and code merged for adding alt-modes
to an usb-connector node, nothing will be using this code,
so I see little use in adding a Cc: stable or some such.
Regards,
Hans
---
drivers/usb/typec/altmodes/displayport.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/altmodes/displayport.c b/drivers/usb/typec/altmodes/displayport.c
index 3f06e94771a7..35161594e368 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/typec/altmodes/displayport.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/typec/altmodes/displayport.c
@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ static int dp_altmode_configure(struct dp_altmode *dp, u8 con)
if (dp->data.status & DP_STATUS_PREFER_MULTI_FUNC &&
pin_assign & DP_PIN_ASSIGN_MULTI_FUNC_MASK)
pin_assign &= DP_PIN_ASSIGN_MULTI_FUNC_MASK;
- else
+ else if (pin_assign & DP_PIN_ASSIGN_DP_ONLY_MASK)
pin_assign &= DP_PIN_ASSIGN_DP_ONLY_MASK;
if (!pin_assign)
--
2.20.1
thanks,
