From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A1CCC2B9F4 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 15:53:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EAE261A0F for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 15:53:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232728AbhF1Pzb (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2021 11:55:31 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54124 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232419AbhF1PzM (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2021 11:55:12 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-x829.google.com (mail-qt1-x829.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::829]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F9D4C0527C0 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 08:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x829.google.com with SMTP id w26so13809999qto.13 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 08:41:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JJf1KMaAZyEMZzZr0dtgEtq/jwHtzO+5QbRg9Ngbh1M=; b=AdOjkqVfHuP6lVxwIGFarEqU09wa/HQlsmguT+msXi0+wYdT90bXYuMezTmTm6zyTN 9Kln7p3loFXQPpNUtLwOjxcZ8R9cph94WzYSxGDBDjfKAGdKrddMKRNWXSjDUv45Dy+I 6Ls+NqrehEGRg3Z9j2bmXPslDBCye8Zm0crB8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JJf1KMaAZyEMZzZr0dtgEtq/jwHtzO+5QbRg9Ngbh1M=; b=ClPrEAzLC30MuGaWh2THck1HDxRvATk/1vZwMneUhS43MKu76+7o/oWExpNcgbC3rO /W2g20Dzj6b9mjo3yLUCxc3eRgkAlB7hyp/K8MXzVfiFMKwcw1mJ9WNlLEftZpSDBWbs ZhSn8DtWaGxQN9x2xEf/i0nye2XQFLtF3XEfed+KOHWWn30gJshVrrdSBLrg6CDK6Mc7 ea+ZeuZ+V06NV8wh5AVJ26m988+jALihC5SG0L64xr1zKsTIA0UwaiK39DmGltKwuUAy I8GH02vnJso3bO6f1QlWCo5s8u9RaeILecXjSk9R1Qcw6u1mbkU4xDNvU2nTn/CaU6Ws AqjA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5302fk7VFTXdJECxjAwMN3MIr84ZPTTjyYMyLymnbCAVDRu2J835 3Odspi1j6I3WS9mZ5S1bPm+Eubw1hh5JHw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzQDE8DckG333nek2P0qaWpfwYKAhZEnEbf6wBYIq4Hrm3/xfkCfhiXOgGask+kDG4NBo0HrQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:ca:: with SMTP id p10mr22861172qtw.83.1624894898047; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 08:41:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yb1-f172.google.com (mail-yb1-f172.google.com. [209.85.219.172]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o66sm10946269qkd.60.2021.06.28.08.41.37 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Jun 2021 08:41:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yb1-f172.google.com with SMTP id m9so19191368ybo.5 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 08:41:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a25:60c1:: with SMTP id u184mr31422485ybb.343.1624894456593; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 08:34:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1624726268-14869-1-git-send-email-rajeevny@codeaurora.org> <1624726268-14869-5-git-send-email-rajeevny@codeaurora.org> In-Reply-To: From: Doug Anderson Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 08:34:04 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [v8 4/6] drm/panel-simple: Update validation warnings for eDP panel description To: Laurent Pinchart Cc: Rajeev Nandan , dri-devel , linux-arm-msm , freedreno , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , LKML , Thierry Reding , Sam Ravnborg , Rob Clark , Lyude Paul , Jani Nikula , Rob Herring , Andrzej Hajda , Daniel Thompson , "Kristian H. Kristensen" , Abhinav Kumar , Sean Paul , Kalyan Thota , Krishna Manikandan Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 6:33 AM Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > Hi Rajeev, > > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 05:46:24PM +0530, rajeevny@codeaurora.org wrote: > > On 27-06-2021 23:48, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 10:21:06PM +0530, Rajeev Nandan wrote: > > >> Do not give a warning for the eDP panels if the "bus_format" is > > >> not specified, since most eDP panels can support more than one > > >> bus formats and this can be auto-detected. > > >> Also, update the check to include bpc=10 for the eDP panel. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Rajeev Nandan > > >> --- > > >> > > >> Changes in v8: > > >> - New patch, to address the review comments of Sam Ravnborg [1] > > >> > > >> [1] > > >> https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20210621184157.GB918146@ravnborg.org/ > > >> > > >> drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c | 6 ++---- > > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > >> > > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c > > >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c > > >> index 86e5a45..f966b562 100644 > > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c > > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c > > >> @@ -772,10 +772,8 @@ static int panel_simple_probe(struct device *dev, > > >> const struct panel_desc *desc, > > >> desc->bpc != 8); > > >> break; > > >> case DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_eDP: > > >> - if (desc->bus_format == 0) > > >> - dev_warn(dev, "Specify missing bus_format\n"); > > >> - if (desc->bpc != 6 && desc->bpc != 8) > > >> - dev_warn(dev, "Expected bpc in {6,8} but got: %u\n", desc->bpc); > > >> + if (desc->bpc != 6 && desc->bpc != 8 && desc->bpc != 10) > > >> + dev_warn(dev, "Expected bpc in {6,8,10} but got: %u\n", desc->bpc); > > > > > > You'll still get a warning is bpc == 0, is that intentional ? > > > > This was not intentional, I missed considering bpc=0 case. As we are > > removing the warning for bus_format=0 then a similar thing can be done > > for the bpc=0 also. The bpc value should be a valid one if it is > > specified. Unlike the bus_format, bpc has few possible values that can > > be checked here along with 0. Please correct me if I misunderstood the > > concept. > > I will fix this. > > What's the point of specifying bpc if it's optional though ? Users of > the panel will need to support the case where bpc is set to 0. Have you > ensured that they all do ? Can they meaningfully use the bpc value if > they need to be ready to support bpc == 0 ? I must be missing something, but to me it seems like Rajeev's patch is fine as-is. From my reading of the code: * Removes the warning if bus_format == 0. This is correct since I don't think specifying bus format for eDP panels makes lots of sense. * Removes the warning if bpc == 10. This is correct since we've seen eDP panels with 10bpc. * Keeps the warning if bpc == 0. IMO we can/should still require panels to specify their BPC. I guess I'm treating this as a "max BPC". I know that we use this field in the sn65dsi86 driver, so if it's OK for this to be 0 then we'll have to change that driver to handle it. Does that sound right to you Laurent? So since I think Rajeev's patch is OK, I'm happy with: Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson Unless I missed something and this patch needs to change then it feels like Rajeev's patch series is in pretty good shape to land. I'm happy to commit it but since Sam made comments on the previous version I'd plan to wait a bit to make sure he has a chance for another look if he wants to. I've also only got 2 days left before I vanish for 1 week of vacation. ...so my plan is: * If Sam / Laurent come back before tomorrow and say they're happy then I'll commit. * If I hear nothing then I'll check back after my vacation. If someone else has committed then I'll be happy. If not and there has just been silence then I'll commit it myself. Please yell if that's not OK. :-) -Doug