[PATCH v3 1/6] drm: bridge: Propagate the bus flags from bridge->timings

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Nikhil,

Thank you for the patch.

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 09:31:29PM +0530, Nikhil Devshatwar wrote:
> bus_flags can be specified by a bridge in the timings.
> If the bridge provides it, Override the bus_flags when propagating
> from next bridge.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nikhil Devshatwar <nikhil.nd at ti.com>
> Reviewed-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen at ti.com>
> ---
> 
> Notes:
>     changes from v2:
>     * update comment
>     changes from v1:
>     * Check for timings
>     * Prioritize timings flags over next bridge's flags
> 
>  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c | 8 ++++++++
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
> index 64f0effb52ac..13b67fc0dad3 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
> @@ -975,6 +975,14 @@ drm_atomic_bridge_propagate_bus_flags(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
>  	 * duplicate the "dummy propagation" logic.
>  	 */
>  	bridge_state->input_bus_cfg.flags = output_flags;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * If legacy bus flags are provided in bridge->timings, use those as
> +	 * input flags instead of propagating the output flags.
> +	 */
> +	if (bridge->timings && bridge->timings->input_bus_flags)
> +		bridge_state->input_bus_cfg.flags =
> +			bridge->timings->input_bus_flags;

Hasn't Boris commented in his review of v1 that bus flags should be set
in atomic_check, even when they're static ? We're moving towards
removing timings->input_bus_flags, so this patch goes in the wrong
direction :-S

>  }
>  
>  /**

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart