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

[Aradhya Bhatia]

On 22/06/24 17:49, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> 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.
> 

Thanks Dmitry!

However, would it be okay if I instead add another patch that makes 2
versions of the "tc_edp_bridge_funcs", say "tc_dpi_edp_bridge_funcs" and
"tc_dsi_edp_bridge_funcs", that have all the same function hooks except
for the .edid_read()?

The dsi edid_read() will remain the same, and Tomi's patch - patch 2/2 -
will only fix the dpi version of the edid_read()?

The bridge already has the capability to distinguish a DSI input from a
DPI input. This can be leveraged to decide which set of functions need
to be used without any major changes.


Regards
Aradhya