2024-05-31 14:05:12

by Sui Jingfeng

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [v4,1/2] drm/bridge: sii902x: Fix mode_valid hook

Hi, Jayesh


On 5/31/24 21:33, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> Hi Jayesh,
>
>>> +
>>> static const struct drm_bridge_funcs sii902x_bridge_funcs = {
>>> .attach = sii902x_bridge_attach,
>>> .mode_set = sii902x_bridge_mode_set,
>>> @@ -516,6 +529,7 @@ static const struct drm_bridge_funcs sii902x_bridge_funcs = {
>>> .atomic_destroy_state = drm_atomic_helper_bridge_destroy_state,
>>> .atomic_get_input_bus_fmts = sii902x_bridge_atomic_get_input_bus_fmts,
>>> .atomic_check = sii902x_bridge_atomic_check,
>>> + .mode_valid = sii902x_bridge_mode_valid,
>
> As you have the possibility to test the driver, it would be nice with a
> follow-up patch that replaces the use of enable() / disable() with the
> atomic counterparts.
>
> enable() / disable() are deprecated, so it is nice to reduce their use.

I agree with Sam.

Please using atomic uniformally with a follow-up patch, the mixed
using of atomic API and non atomic API is a little bit confusing IMO.


> Sam


2024-06-12 05:23:08

by Jayesh Choudhary

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [v4,1/2] drm/bridge: sii902x: Fix mode_valid hook

Hello Sui, Sam!

Thanks for the review.

(Sorry for delayed response. I was OoO last week)

On 31/05/24 19:34, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> Hi, Jayesh
>
>
> On 5/31/24 21:33, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>> Hi Jayesh,
>>
>>>> +
>>>>    static const struct drm_bridge_funcs sii902x_bridge_funcs = {
>>>>        .attach = sii902x_bridge_attach,
>>>>        .mode_set = sii902x_bridge_mode_set,
>>>> @@ -516,6 +529,7 @@ static const struct drm_bridge_funcs
>>>> sii902x_bridge_funcs = {
>>>>        .atomic_destroy_state = drm_atomic_helper_bridge_destroy_state,
>>>>        .atomic_get_input_bus_fmts =
>>>> sii902x_bridge_atomic_get_input_bus_fmts,
>>>>        .atomic_check = sii902x_bridge_atomic_check,
>>>> +    .mode_valid = sii902x_bridge_mode_valid,
>>
>> As you have the possibility to test the driver, it would be nice with a
>> follow-up patch that replaces the use of enable() / disable() with the
>> atomic counterparts.
>>
>> enable() / disable() are deprecated, so it is nice to reduce their use.
>
> I agree with Sam.
>
> Please using atomic uniformally with a follow-up patch, the mixed
> using of atomic API and non atomic API is a little bit confusing IMO.
>
>

I will change the enable and disable to their atomic counter parts in
the next revision.

Warm Regards,
-Jayesh