Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210726231351.655302-1-bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
 <CAD=FV=UGtHXD==Yy8CVCOioYGb=2hqGQOoNWftD1Jj7OiEp51g@mail.gmail.com> <YSpK3wTUdqlUyJxb@yoga>
In-Reply-To: <YSpK3wTUdqlUyJxb@yoga>
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date:   Mon, 30 Aug 2021 09:01:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=URLJHujmu36sNMfPVMYtDZUirJq5T-PLbeMGqjLuMtNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] drm/msm/dp: Allow attaching a drm_panel
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
Cc:     Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>, Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Abhinav Kumar <abhinavk@codeaurora.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
        Kuogee Hsieh <khsieh@codeaurora.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Vara Reddy <varar@codeaurora.org>,
        freedreno <freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Chandan Uddaraju <chandanu@codeaurora.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 7:40 AM Bjorn Andersson
<bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri 27 Aug 15:52 CDT 2021, Doug Anderson wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:15 PM Bjorn Andersson
> > <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > +static int dp_parser_find_panel(struct dp_parser *parser)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct device_node *np = parser->pdev->dev.of_node;
> > > +       int rc;
> > > +
> > > +       rc = drm_of_find_panel_or_bridge(np, 2, 0, &parser->drm_panel, NULL);
> >
> > Why port 2? Shouldn't this just be port 1 always? The yaml says that
> > port 1 is "Output endpoint of the controller". We should just use port
> > 1 here, right?
> >
>
> I thought port 1 was the link to the Type-C controller, didn't give it a
> second thought and took the next available.
>
> But per the binding it makes sense that the panel is the "Output
> endpoint of the controller" and I guess one will have either a Type-C
> controller or a panel - even after the DP rework?

Right, my understanding is that "port 1" is the output port
irregardless of whether you're outputting to a panel or a DP
connector. I think the only case it would make sense to add a new port
is if it was possible for the output to be connected to both a panel
and a DP port simultaneously. ...but that doesn't make sense.

-Doug