[PATCH] drm/bridge: analogix: Don't return -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in PSR functions

[Archit Taneja]

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?

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