Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220309143200.111292-1-paul.kocialkowski@bootlin.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220309143200.111292-1-paul.kocialkowski@bootlin.com>
From:   Jagan Teki <jagan@amarulasolutions.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Mar 2022 21:35:11 +0530
Message-ID: <CAMty3ZAZKHTqfR=ecRgpzJtVefhFFrSpcEqueSQ6K-=Q75XU4w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: of: Properly try all possible cases for bridge/panel detection
To:     Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski@bootlin.com>
Cc:     dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Paul,

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 8:02 PM Paul Kocialkowski
<paul.kocialkowski@bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> While bridge/panel detection was initially relying on the usual
> port/ports-based of graph detection, it was recently changed to
> perform the lookup on any child node that is not port/ports
> instead when such a node is available, with no fallback on the
> usual way.
>
> This results in breaking detection when a child node is present
> but does not contain any panel or bridge node, even when the
> usual port/ports-based of graph is there.

Can you add that pipeline example on the commit message, it gives more
information on specific use cases why the existing code breaks.

Thanks,
Jagan.