[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <AVKWFQ.TNMR0WH83TFS2@crapouillou.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 02:47:34 +0200
From: Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
To: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@...guardiasur.com.ar>
Cc: David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
od@...c.me
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/ingenic: Fix driver not probing when IPU port
is missing
Le dim. 30 août 2020 à 21:21, Ezequiel Garcia
<ezequiel@...guardiasur.com.ar> a écrit :
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 09:04, Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> Even if support for the IPU was compiled in, we may run on a device
>> (e.g. the Qi LB60) where the IPU is not available, or simply with
>> an old
>> devicetree without the IPU node. In that case the ingenic-drm
>> refused to
>> probe.
>>
>> Fix the driver so that it will probe even if the IPU node is not
>> present
>> in devicetree (but then IPU support is disabled of course).
>>
>> v2: Take a different approach
>>
>> Fixes: fc1acf317b01 ("drm/ingenic: Add support for the IPU")
>> Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/ingenic/ingenic-drm-drv.c | 19 +++++++++++--------
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ingenic/ingenic-drm-drv.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/ingenic/ingenic-drm-drv.c
>> index c1bcb93aed2d..b7074161ccf0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ingenic/ingenic-drm-drv.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ingenic/ingenic-drm-drv.c
>> @@ -673,7 +673,7 @@ static void ingenic_drm_unbind_all(void *d)
>> component_unbind_all(priv->dev, &priv->drm);
>> }
>>
>> -static int ingenic_drm_bind(struct device *dev)
>> +static int ingenic_drm_bind(struct device *dev, bool
>> has_components)
>> {
>> struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev);
>> const struct jz_soc_info *soc_info;
>> @@ -808,7 +808,7 @@ static int ingenic_drm_bind(struct device *dev)
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_INGENIC_IPU)) {
>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_INGENIC_IPU) &&
>> has_components) {
>> ret = component_bind_all(dev, drm);
>> if (ret) {
>> if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
>> @@ -939,6 +939,11 @@ static int ingenic_drm_bind(struct device *dev)
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> +static int ingenic_drm_bind_with_components(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> + return ingenic_drm_bind(dev, true);
>> +}
>> +
>> static int compare_of(struct device *dev, void *data)
>> {
>> return dev->of_node == data;
>> @@ -957,7 +962,7 @@ static void ingenic_drm_unbind(struct device
>> *dev)
>> }
>>
>> static const struct component_master_ops ingenic_master_ops = {
>> - .bind = ingenic_drm_bind,
>> + .bind = ingenic_drm_bind_with_components,
>> .unbind = ingenic_drm_unbind,
>> };
>>
>> @@ -968,14 +973,12 @@ static int ingenic_drm_probe(struct
>> platform_device *pdev)
>> struct device_node *np;
>>
>> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_INGENIC_IPU))
>> - return ingenic_drm_bind(dev);
>> + return ingenic_drm_bind(dev, false);
>>
>> /* IPU is at port address 8 */
>> np = of_graph_get_remote_node(dev->of_node, 8, 0);
>
> How about we get rid of this (seems a bit odd to rely on port
> address) ?
> Rockchip-drm driver has a nice approach, and I think we might need
> something like that going forward, to support dw-hdmi.
The rockchip-drm approach works because all the sub-drivers must probe.
In the case of ingenic-drm, even if the ingenic-drm driver was compiled
with the ipu and dw-hdmi sub-drivers, you can't rely on these probing,
as they are not present on e.g. the JZ4740.
Cheers,
-Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists