Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi83: Handle dsi_lanes == 0 as invalid

From: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
To: Robert Foss <robert.foss@linaro.org>
Cc: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>,
	Jonas Karlman <jonas@kwiboo.se>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
	Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi83: Handle dsi_lanes == 0 as invalid
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 12:54:29 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <26c707fc-5d7b-581f-6a21-9026038ed9e7@denx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAG3jFysH5oLtoJ+bkHL-7m2Qbp3W7ostU7YH6_2D6tTGzTup4g@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/23/22 12:23, Robert Foss wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2022 at 11:58, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
>>
>> On 5/23/22 11:40, Robert Foss wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 at 09:57, Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am Donnerstag, dem 19.05.2022 um 01:38 +0200 schrieb Marek Vasut:
>>>>> Handle empty data-lanes = < >; property, which translates to
>>>>> dsi_lanes = 0 as invalid.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi83.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi83.c
>>>>> index d64d4385188dd..dc65f424e7f3c 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi83.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi83.c
>>>>> @@ -585,7 +585,7 @@ static int sn65dsi83_parse_dt(struct sn65dsi83 *ctx, enum sn65dsi83_model model)
>>>>>         ctx->host_node = of_graph_get_remote_port_parent(endpoint);
>>>>>         of_node_put(endpoint);
>>>>>
>>>>> -     if (ctx->dsi_lanes < 0 || ctx->dsi_lanes > 4) {
>>>>> +     if (ctx->dsi_lanes <= 0 || ctx->dsi_lanes > 4) {
>>>>>                 ret = -EINVAL;
>>>>>                 goto err_put_node;
>>>>>         }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Applied to drm-misc-next.
>>
>> This was already applied to drm-misc-next-fixes , since this is a fix
>> for something that was already in release . The conflict will resolve
>> itself easily though ?
> 
> Ah, I didn't realize. I'm not sure if it will resolve itself or not.
> But I think either it is reverted in drm-misc-next now, or we wait for
> an issue to crop up. I think either way is acceptable, but waiting
> maybe causes less churn. So unless someone has another preference,
> let's wait and see if a conflict arises.

I agree, we wait.