Hi Nikhil, Thank you for the patch.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 09:31:29PM +0530, Nikhil Devshatwar wrote: > bus_flags can be specified by a bridge in the timings. > If the bridge provides it, Override the bus_flags when propagating > from next bridge. > > Signed-off-by: Nikhil Devshatwar <nikhil...@ti.com> > Reviewed-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkei...@ti.com> > --- > > Notes: > changes from v2: > * update comment > changes from v1: > * Check for timings > * Prioritize timings flags over next bridge's flags > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c > index 64f0effb52ac..13b67fc0dad3 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c > @@ -975,6 +975,14 @@ drm_atomic_bridge_propagate_bus_flags(struct drm_bridge > *bridge, > * duplicate the "dummy propagation" logic. > */ > bridge_state->input_bus_cfg.flags = output_flags; > + > + /* > + * If legacy bus flags are provided in bridge->timings, use those as > + * input flags instead of propagating the output flags. > + */ > + if (bridge->timings && bridge->timings->input_bus_flags) > + bridge_state->input_bus_cfg.flags = > + bridge->timings->input_bus_flags; Hasn't Boris commented in his review of v1 that bus flags should be set in atomic_check, even when they're static ? We're moving towards removing timings->input_bus_flags, so this patch goes in the wrong direction :-S > } > > /** -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
