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

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 03:07:10PM GMT, Aradhya Bhatia wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

I'd prefer if somebody with the DSI setup can ack / test the second
patch.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry