[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251201-enlightened-zebu-from-asgard-5a20be@houat>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 18:01:56 +0100
From: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Daniel Stone <daniel@...ishbar.org>,
Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>, Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
Robert Foss <rfoss@...nel.org>, Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>, Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
Sandy Huang <hjc@...k-chips.com>, Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Andy Yan <andy.yan@...k-chips.com>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>, Dave Stevenson <dave.stevenson@...pberrypi.com>,
Maíra Canal <mcanal@...lia.com>, Raspberry Pi Kernel Maintenance <kernel-list@...pberrypi.com>,
Liu Ying <victor.liu@....com>, Rob Clark <robin.clark@....qualcomm.com>,
Dmitry Baryshkov <lumag@...nel.org>, Abhinav Kumar <abhinav.kumar@...ux.dev>,
Jessica Zhang <jessica.zhang@....qualcomm.com>, Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/11] drm/connector: hdmi: limit infoframes per
driver capabilities
On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 07:09:01PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > So it's not really impossible, you just need some hardware and a day's
> > worth of work.
> >
> > There's no reason these should get a pass, it's breaking the spec for no
> > reason.
> >
> > > > For SPD, It's really not clear to me why atomic_check should do that in
> > > > the first place. Your initial concern was about exposing infoframes in
> > > > debugfs that wouldn't be used by the driver.
> > > >
> > > > If the driver doesn't register a debugfs file for SPD, and ignores
> > > > whatever is in the atomic state, what's should we force drivers to do
> > > > that?
> > >
> > > I really don't think that drivers should mess up with debugfs on their
> > > own. Making atomic_check() disable the unsupported InfoFrames makes the
> > > picture perfect: the DRM no longer tries to program them to the
> > > hardware, DebugFS files stay empty, so the whole state becomes
> > > consistent.
> >
> > In the "bridge has no access to infoframes" case, there's really no
> > infoframe. An empty file is "the infoframe can be there but isn't used",
> > not "we don't have access to it and can't report them". Only drivers
> > have those infos.
> >
> > If we do split up write_infoframe into multiple functions though, I
> > guess we could create the debugfs file only if the function pointer is
> > set, which removes drivers' involvement if you don't like that.
>
> I'm fine with not using HDMI connector framework for lt9611uxc.
> Likewise, I think, it's fine to have empty files for the infoframes
> which are not being sent over the wire for any reason (hw not supporting
> it is one of the reasons).
I can't think of any other example in the kernel where an empty file
means that the driver doesn't support something.
Maxime
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (274 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists