[PATCH v2 0/2] drm/bridge: tc358767: Fix DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR case

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 05:16:58PM GMT, Aradhya Bhatia wrote:
> 
> 
> On 17-Jun-24 13:41, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 07:40:32AM GMT, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 16.02.24 15:57, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>> On 2/16/24 10:10, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> >>>> Ok. Does anyone have a worry that these patches make the situation
> >>>> worse for the DSI case than it was before? Afaics, if the DSI lanes
> >>>> are not set up early enough by the DSI host, the driver would break
> >>>> with and without these patches.
> >>>>
> >>>> These do fix the driver for DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR and DPI, so
> >>>> I'd like to merge these unless these cause a regression with the DSI
> >>>> case.
> >>>
> >>> 1/2 looks good to me, go ahead and apply .
> 
> Isn't there any way for the second patch to move forward as well though?
> The bridge device (under DPI to (e)DP mode) cannot really work without
> it, and the patches have been pending idle for a long time. =)
> 
> >>
> >> My local patches still apply on top of 6.10-rc4, so I don't think this
> >> ever happened. What's still holding up this long-pending fix (at least
> >> for our devices)?
> > 
> > Neither of the patches contains Fixes tags. If the first patch fixes an
> > issue in previous kernels, please consider following the stable process.
> > 
> > If we are unsure about the second patch, please send the first patch
> > separately, adding proper tags.
> > 
> 
> Thanks Dmitry! I can send the patches again with the required fixes
> tags (or just patch-1 if we cannot do anything about patch-2).

The problem with the second patch is that it get mixed reviews. I can
ack the first patch, but for the second one I'd need a confirmation from
somebody else. I'll go on and apply the first patch later today.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry