As reported by Laurent in response to this commit[1], this functionality should
not be implemented using the devicetree, because of this let's revert this series
for now.
This reverts commit c312b0df3b13e4c533743bb2c37fd1bc237368e5.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
Signed-off-by: Robert Foss <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 28 ---------------------------
1 file changed, 28 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
index 3c3561942eb6..6e053e2af229 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
@@ -29,7 +29,6 @@
#include <drm/drm_atomic_helper.h>
#include <drm/drm_bridge.h>
#include <drm/drm_bridge_connector.h>
-#include <drm/drm_edid.h>
#include <drm/drm_mipi_dsi.h>
#include <drm/drm_of.h>
#include <drm/drm_panel.h>
@@ -69,7 +68,6 @@
#define BPP_18_RGB BIT(0)
#define SN_HPD_DISABLE_REG 0x5C
#define HPD_DISABLE BIT(0)
-#define HPD_DEBOUNCED_STATE BIT(4)
#define SN_GPIO_IO_REG 0x5E
#define SN_GPIO_INPUT_SHIFT 4
#define SN_GPIO_OUTPUT_SHIFT 0
@@ -1160,33 +1158,10 @@ static void ti_sn_bridge_atomic_post_disable(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
pm_runtime_put_sync(pdata->dev);
}
-static enum drm_connector_status ti_sn_bridge_detect(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
-{
- struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata = bridge_to_ti_sn65dsi86(bridge);
- int val = 0;
-
- pm_runtime_get_sync(pdata->dev);
- regmap_read(pdata->regmap, SN_HPD_DISABLE_REG, &val);
- pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(pdata->dev);
-
- return val & HPD_DEBOUNCED_STATE ? connector_status_connected
- : connector_status_disconnected;
-}
-
-static struct edid *ti_sn_bridge_get_edid(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
- struct drm_connector *connector)
-{
- struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata = bridge_to_ti_sn65dsi86(bridge);
-
- return drm_get_edid(connector, &pdata->aux.ddc);
-}
-
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,
- .get_edid = ti_sn_bridge_get_edid,
- .detect = ti_sn_bridge_detect,
.atomic_pre_enable = ti_sn_bridge_atomic_pre_enable,
.atomic_enable = ti_sn_bridge_atomic_enable,
.atomic_disable = ti_sn_bridge_atomic_disable,
@@ -1282,9 +1257,6 @@ static int ti_sn_bridge_probe(struct auxiliary_device *adev,
pdata->bridge.type = pdata->next_bridge->type == DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DisplayPort
? DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DisplayPort : DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_eDP;
- if (pdata->bridge.type == DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DisplayPort)
- pdata->bridge.ops = DRM_BRIDGE_OP_EDID | DRM_BRIDGE_OP_DETECT;
-
drm_bridge_add(&pdata->bridge);
ret = ti_sn_attach_host(pdata);
--
2.34.1
Robert,
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 12:43 PM Robert Foss <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> As reported by Laurent in response to this commit[1], this functionality should
> not be implemented using the devicetree, because of this let's revert this series
> for now.
>
> This reverts commit c312b0df3b13e4c533743bb2c37fd1bc237368e5.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>
> Signed-off-by: Robert Foss <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 28 ---------------------------
> 1 file changed, 28 deletions(-)
Any chance you got confused and reverted the wrong patch? This
ti-sn65dsi86 patch doesn't seem relevant to the problems talked about
in the commit or the cover letter. Maybe I'm missing something?
-Doug
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 03:29:52PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 12:43 PM Robert Foss <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > As reported by Laurent in response to this commit[1], this functionality should
> > not be implemented using the devicetree, because of this let's revert this series
> > for now.
> >
> > This reverts commit c312b0df3b13e4c533743bb2c37fd1bc237368e5.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Robert Foss <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 28 ---------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 28 deletions(-)
>
> Any chance you got confused and reverted the wrong patch? This
> ti-sn65dsi86 patch doesn't seem relevant to the problems talked about
> in the commit or the cover letter. Maybe I'm missing something?
Aarghhh I missed that when checking the cover letter :-( This indeed
seems wrong.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
On Mon, 12 Sept 2022 at 16:43, Laurent Pinchart
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 03:29:52PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 12:43 PM Robert Foss <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > As reported by Laurent in response to this commit[1], this functionality should
> > > not be implemented using the devicetree, because of this let's revert this series
> > > for now.
> > >
> > > This reverts commit c312b0df3b13e4c533743bb2c37fd1bc237368e5.
> > >
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Robert Foss <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 28 ---------------------------
> > > 1 file changed, 28 deletions(-)
> >
> > Any chance you got confused and reverted the wrong patch? This
> > ti-sn65dsi86 patch doesn't seem relevant to the problems talked about
> > in the commit or the cover letter. Maybe I'm missing something?
>
> Aarghhh I missed that when checking the cover letter :-( This indeed
> seems wrong.
Yep. This is a mistake. I copy/pasted the wrong line and then assumed
that ti-sn65dsi86 & chrontel-ch7033 shared a driver. I'll look into my
workflows to try to prevent future mistakes of this nature.
A series fixing this has been posted.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
Thanks for catching this Doug!
Rob.