On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 04:23:56PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Maxime Ripard <maxime.rip...@bootlin.com> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 04:09:13PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> Maxime Ripard <maxime.rip...@bootlin.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 04:11:06PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> >> Maxime Ripard <maxime.rip...@bootlin.com> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Hi!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 01:47:13PM +0000, Mans Rullgard wrote:
> >> >> >> Sometimes it is desirabled to use a separate i2c controller for ddc
> >> >> >> access. This adds support for the ddc-i2c-bus property of the
> >> >> >> hdmi-connector node, using the specified controller if provided.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Mans Rullgard <m...@mansr.com>
> >> >> >> ---
> >> >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_hdmi.h | 1 +
> >> >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_hdmi_enc.c | 37
> >> >> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >> >> >> 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_hdmi.h
> >> >> >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_hdmi.h
> >> >> >> index b685ee11623d..b08c4453d47c 100644
> >> >> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_hdmi.h
> >> >> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_hdmi.h
> >> >> >> @@ -269,6 +269,7 @@ struct sun4i_hdmi {
> >> >> >> struct clk *tmds_clk;
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> struct i2c_adapter *i2c;
> >> >> >> + struct i2c_adapter *ddc_i2c;
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> /* Regmap fields for I2C adapter */
> >> >> >> struct regmap_field *field_ddc_en;
> >> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_hdmi_enc.c
> >> >> >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_hdmi_enc.c
> >> >> >> index 061d2e0d9011..5b2fac79f5d6 100644
> >> >> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_hdmi_enc.c
> >> >> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/sun4i/sun4i_hdmi_enc.c
> >> >> >> @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ static int sun4i_hdmi_get_modes(struct
> >> >> >> drm_connector *connector)
> >> >> >> struct edid *edid;
> >> >> >> int ret;
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> - edid = drm_get_edid(connector, hdmi->i2c);
> >> >> >> + edid = drm_get_edid(connector, hdmi->ddc_i2c ?: hdmi->i2c);
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You can't test whether ddc_i2c is NULL or not...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> if (!edid)
> >> >> >> return 0;
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> @@ -228,6 +228,28 @@ static int sun4i_hdmi_get_modes(struct
> >> >> >> drm_connector *connector)
> >> >> >> return ret;
> >> >> >> }
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> +static struct i2c_adapter *sun4i_hdmi_get_ddc(struct device *dev)
> >> >> >> +{
> >> >> >> + struct device_node *phandle, *remote;
> >> >> >> + struct i2c_adapter *ddc;
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> + remote = of_graph_get_remote_node(dev->of_node, 1, -1);
> >> >> >> + if (!remote)
> >> >> >> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> + phandle = of_parse_phandle(remote, "ddc-i2c-bus", 0);
> >> >> >> + of_node_put(remote);
> >> >> >> + if (!phandle)
> >> >> >> + return NULL;
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> + ddc = of_get_i2c_adapter_by_node(phandle);
> >> >> >> + of_node_put(phandle);
> >> >> >> + if (!ddc)
> >> >> >> + return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> + return ddc;
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ... Since even in (most) error cases you're returning a !NULL pointer.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> +}
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> static const struct drm_connector_helper_funcs
> >> >> >> sun4i_hdmi_connector_helper_funcs = {
> >> >> >> .get_modes = sun4i_hdmi_get_modes,
> >> >> >> };
> >> >> >> @@ -575,6 +597,12 @@ static int sun4i_hdmi_bind(struct device *dev,
> >> >> >> struct device *master,
> >> >> >> goto err_disable_mod_clk;
> >> >> >> }
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> + hdmi->ddc_i2c = sun4i_hdmi_get_ddc(dev);
> >> >> >> + if (IS_ERR(hdmi->ddc_i2c)) {
> >> >>
> >> >> ... which is checked here.
> >> >>
> >> >> The property is optional, so the idea was to return null in that case
> >> >> and use the built-in controller. If the property exists but some error
> >> >> occurs, we want to abort rather than proceed with the fallback which
> >> >> almost certainly won't work.
> >> >>
> >> >> Maybe I got something wrong in that logic.
> >> >
> >> > Indeed, I just got confused. I guess returning ENODEV in such a case,
> >> > and testing for that, would make things more obvious.
> >>
> >> There's also a case I hadn't thought of: property exists but isn't a
> >> valid phandle. What do you think is the correct action in that case?
> >
> > I think we would have that one covered. of_parse_phandle will return
> > !NULL, but then of_get_i2c_adapter_by_node will return NULL since we
> > wouldn't have an associated i2c adapter to the bogus phandle, and you
> > are checking for that already.
>
> of_parse_phandle() doesn't differentiate between a missing property and
> an existing non-phandle value. The following cases are possible with
> this patch:
>
> - ddc-i2c-bus points to valid i2c controller node: use this for ddc
> - no ddc-i2c-bus property: return NULL, use internal i2c
> - ddc-i2c-bus exists but isn't a phandle: likewise
> - ddc-i2c-bus points to a non-i2c-controller node: EPROBE_DEFER
>
> The last two cases obviously mean the devicetree is invalid, so perhaps
> it doesn't matter much what happens then. I don't think it's possible
> to distinguish between a well-formed phandle pointing to some bogus node
> and a good one where the i2c driver hasn't been probed yet.Ah, I see what you mean now. Yeah, there's not much we can do against a wrong / corrupted DT. The DT validation would help prevent the third case, and possibly the fourth, but that's basically the only thing we can do. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
