On 1/5/2024 4:38 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 at 02:04, Carl Vanderlip <quic_ca...@quicinc.com> wrote:
On 1/5/2024 3:34 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c
index 50b65ffc24b1..ef57586fbeca 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c
@@ -969,6 +969,37 @@ static int add_components_mdp(struct device *master_dev,
return 0;
}
+#if !IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_DRM_MSM_MDP5) || !IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_DRM_MSM_DPU)
+bool msm_disp_drv_should_bind(struct device *dev, bool mdp5_driver)
+{
+ /* If just a single driver is enabled, use it no matter what */
+ return true;
+}
This will cause both MDP/DPU probes to return -ENODEV, rather than
select the enabled one.
No. The code (e.g. for DPU) is:
if (!msm_disp_drv_should_bind(&pdev->dev, true))
return -ENODEV;
So the driver returns -ENODEV if msm_disp_drv_should_bind() returns
false. Which is logical from the function name point of view.
but msm_disp_drv_should_bind() is returning true in the #if !REACHABLE()
case?
at minimum the comment is incorrect since returning true causes the
driver to NOT be used.
-Carl V.
