[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <164862868776.152576.939299098675970686.b4-ty@cerno.tech>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 10:25:35 +0200
From: Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>
To: Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski@...tlin.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Cc: Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>,
Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
Jagan Teki <jagan@...rulasolutions.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Subject: Re: (subset) [PATCH v3] drm: of: Properly try all possible cases for bridge/panel detection
On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 15:27:32 +0200, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> While bridge/panel detection was initially relying on the usual
> port/ports-based of graph detection, it was recently changed to
> perform the lookup on any child node that is not port/ports
> instead when such a node is available, with no fallback on the
> usual way.
>
> This results in breaking detection when a child node is present
> but does not contain any panel or bridge node, even when the
> usual port/ports-based of graph is there.
>
> [...]
Applied to drm/drm-misc (drm-misc-next-fixes).
Thanks!
Maxime
Powered by blists - more mailing lists