Thierry Reding <thierry.red...@gmail.com> writes: > [ Unknown signature status ] > On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 03:00:38PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: >> Hello, >> >> This is a new attempt at fixing the "panel is missing" issue (described >> in this thread ). I lost track of Eric's proposal, but I recently >> proposed to address this problem through a new ->detect() hook in the >> panel_funcs interface , which was rejected. >> >> So here is a new version based on the feedback I had from Daniel, >> Thierry and Rob. >> >> The idea is to allow of_drm_find_panel() to return -ENODEV and let the >> DRM driver decide what to do with that (silently ignore the missing >> component and register the DRM device, or fail to register the DRM >> device). >> >> Patch 1 changes the semantic of of_drm_find_panel() so that it returns >> an ERR_PTR() instead of NULL when the panel is not found. This way >> we'll be able to differentiate the "panel is missing" from "panel has >> not been probed yet" errors. >> >> Patch 2 and 3 are adding new tests in of_drm_find_panel() and >> drm_of_find_panel_or_bridge() to return -ENODEV when the status >> property of the DT node is not set to "okay". >> >> Patch 4 is patching the VC4 DSI encoder driver to gracefully handle the >> -ENODEV case and allow the registration of the DRM device when the DSI >> device is disabled. >> >> Note that patch 6 which was modifying the panel status prop from the >> I2C driver has been dropped because I'm not sure yet how to solve the >> "force probe of deferred-probe devices even if no new devices have been >> bound to drivers" problem. Anyway, even without this patch, the series >> still makes sense to handle the case where devices are described in the >> DT but marked "disabled" (either at compilation time or tweaked by the >> bootloader). >> >> Regards, >> >> Boris >> >> Changes in v3: >> - Dropped patch 1 since it's been acked by Thierry and should be >> applied soon (either through the drm-tegra or drm-misc tree) >> - Dropped patch 6 because we are still discussing who should mark >> the device "disabled" or "fail" and how we should trigger the >> re-probe of deferred-probe devices in this case >> >> Changes in v2: >> - Everything :-) >> >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2017-November/157688.html >> https://www.spinics.net/lists/dri-devel/msg174808.html > > I don't exactly remember what we decided should be the merge path for > this, but I suspect someone else was supposed to pick it up because I > ended up acking these patches. However, since this hasn't been applied > yet, I decided to go ahead and apply this to drm-misc-next.
Since you'd been engaged on previous versions, I was waiting for an ack on patch 1. Thanks for taking care of this now!
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel