On 10/29/25 10:42 PM, Almahallawy, Khaled wrote: > On Wed, 2025-10-29 at 10:42 +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >> On 10/28/25 11:28 PM, Khaled Almahallawy wrote: >>> The DP_TEST_LINK_FAUX_PATTERN field was deprecated in the DP 1.3 >>> spec. >>> Update its name to align with the DP 2.1 definition and reflect its >>> actual use in the code. No functional changes. >>> >>> Cc: Jani Nikula <[email protected]> >>> Cc: Rob Clark <[email protected]> >>> Cc: Dmitry Baryshkov <[email protected]> >>> Cc: Abhinav Kumar <[email protected]> >>> Cc: Sean Paul <[email protected]> >>> Signed-off-by: Khaled Almahallawy <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_link.c | 2 +- >>> include/drm/display/drm_dp.h | 2 +- >>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_link.c >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_link.c >>> index 66e1bbd80db3..5d465cf4dbc2 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_link.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_link.c >>> @@ -665,7 +665,7 @@ static int msm_dp_link_parse_request(struct >>> msm_dp_link_private *link) >>> return rlen; >>> } >>> >>> - if (!data || (data == DP_TEST_LINK_FAUX_PATTERN)) { >>> + if (!data || (data == >>> DP_TEST_PHY_TEST_CHANNEL_CODING_TYPE)) { >>> drm_dbg_dp(link->drm_dev, "link 0x%x not >>> supported\n", data); >>> goto end; >>> } >>> diff --git a/include/drm/display/drm_dp.h >>> b/include/drm/display/drm_dp.h >>> index e4eebabab975..610b8cbf1125 100644 >>> --- a/include/drm/display/drm_dp.h >>> +++ b/include/drm/display/drm_dp.h >>> @@ -849,7 +849,7 @@ >>> # define DP_TEST_LINK_VIDEO_PATTERN (1 << 1) >>> # define DP_TEST_LINK_EDID_READ (1 << 2) >>> # define DP_TEST_LINK_PHY_TEST_PATTERN (1 << 3) /* DPCD >= >>> 1.1 */ >>> -# define DP_TEST_LINK_FAUX_PATTERN (1 << 4) /* DPCD >= >>> 1.2 */ >>> +# define DP_TEST_PHY_TEST_CHANNEL_CODING_TYPE (1 << 4) >> >> I think it'd be useful to keep a comment of what it was before the >> deprecation and rename > > Given that msm is currently the only driver that reads this bit and > correctly interprets it when handling automated test requests to > determine 128b/132b support—and following the style used throughout > this file, since I don’t see other examples referencing deprecated > names in comments > > what do you think about using something like this instead? > > #define DP_TEST_PHY_TEST_CHANNEL_CODING_TYPE (1 << 4) /* DP 2.1 */
Makes sense, let's do it Konrad
