[PATCH v1 4/9] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Use atomic variants of drm_bridge_funcs

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Sun, Feb 6, 2022 at 7:44 AM Sam Ravnborg <sam at ravnborg.org> wrote:
>
> Move away from the deprecated enable/diable operations in
> drm_bridge_funcs and enable atomic use.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam at ravnborg.org>
> Cc: Douglas Anderson <dianders at chromium.org>
> Cc: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda at samsung.com>
> Cc: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong at baylibre.com>
> Cc: Robert Foss <robert.foss at linaro.org>
> Cc: Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart at ideasonboard.com>
> Cc: Jonas Karlman <jonas at kwiboo.se>
> Cc: Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec at gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 21 +++++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> index ba136a188be7..d681ab68205c 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> @@ -796,7 +796,8 @@ ti_sn_bridge_mode_valid(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
>         return MODE_OK;
>  }
>
> -static void ti_sn_bridge_disable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
> +static void ti_sn_bridge_atomic_disable(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
> +                                       struct drm_bridge_state *old_bridge_state)
>  {
>         struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata = bridge_to_ti_sn65dsi86(bridge);
>
> @@ -1055,7 +1056,8 @@ static int ti_sn_link_training(struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata, int dp_rate_idx,
>         return ret;
>  }
>
> -static void ti_sn_bridge_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
> +static void ti_sn_bridge_atomic_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
> +                                      struct drm_bridge_state *old_bridge_state)
>  {
>         struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata = bridge_to_ti_sn65dsi86(bridge);
>         const char *last_err_str = "No supported DP rate";
> @@ -1124,7 +1126,8 @@ static void ti_sn_bridge_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
>                            VSTREAM_ENABLE);
>  }
>
> -static void ti_sn_bridge_pre_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
> +static void ti_sn_bridge_atomic_pre_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
> +                                          struct drm_bridge_state *old_bridge_state)
>  {
>         struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata = bridge_to_ti_sn65dsi86(bridge);
>
> @@ -1137,7 +1140,8 @@ static void ti_sn_bridge_pre_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
>         usleep_range(100, 110);
>  }
>
> -static void ti_sn_bridge_post_disable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
> +static void ti_sn_bridge_atomic_post_disable(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
> +                                            struct drm_bridge_state *old_bridge_state)
>  {
>         struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata = bridge_to_ti_sn65dsi86(bridge);
>
> @@ -1158,10 +1162,11 @@ static const struct drm_bridge_funcs ti_sn_bridge_funcs = {
>         .attach = ti_sn_bridge_attach,
>         .detach = ti_sn_bridge_detach,
>         .mode_valid = ti_sn_bridge_mode_valid,
> -       .pre_enable = ti_sn_bridge_pre_enable,
> -       .enable = ti_sn_bridge_enable,
> -       .disable = ti_sn_bridge_disable,
> -       .post_disable = ti_sn_bridge_post_disable,
> +       .atomic_pre_enable = ti_sn_bridge_atomic_pre_enable,
> +       .atomic_enable = ti_sn_atomic_bridge_enable,
> +       .atomic_disable = ti_sn_atomic_bridge_disable,
> +       .atomic_post_disable = ti_sn_bridge_post_disable,

Compiler doesn't like the fact that you are inconsistent about whether
it's "atomic_bridge" or "bridge_atomic". Probably should settle on
"bridge_atomic"? ...and the "post_disable" needs "atomic" in the
name...

> +       DRM_BRIDGE_STATE_OPS,

Wow, is it really that simple? I guess it seems to work OK...

Since I don't actually know tons about atomic and whether this is
enough, consider my Reviewed-by tag to be pretty weak. That being
said, this _seems_ right to me?

So once it compiles then I'm fine w/ my (weak) Reviewed-by and my Tested-by.

-Doug