> The current code assumes the data-lanes property is configured on the
> DSI host side instead of the bridge side, and assumes DSI host endpoint 1.
>
> Let's standardize on what the other bridge drivers are doing and parse the
> data-lanes property for the bridge. Only if data-lanes property is not found,
> let's be nice and also check the DSI host for old dtb in use and warn.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tony Lindgren <t...@atomide.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/tc358775.c | 25 +++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/tc358775.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/tc358775.c
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/tc358775.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/tc358775.c
> @@ -525,27 +525,24 @@ tc_mode_valid(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
> static int tc358775_parse_dt(struct device_node *np, struct tc_data *tc)
> {
> struct device_node *endpoint;
> - struct device_node *parent;
> struct device_node *remote;
> int dsi_lanes = -1;
>
> - /*
> - * To get the data-lanes of dsi, we need to access the dsi0_out of port1
> - * of dsi0 endpoint from bridge port0 of d2l_in
> - */
> endpoint = of_graph_get_endpoint_by_regs(tc->dev->of_node,
> TC358775_DSI_IN, -1);
> - if (endpoint) {
> - /* dsi0_out node */
> - parent = of_graph_get_remote_port_parent(endpoint);
> - of_node_put(endpoint);
> - if (parent) {
> - /* dsi0 port 1 */
> - dsi_lanes = drm_of_get_data_lanes_count_ep(parent, 1,
> -1, 1, 4);
> - of_node_put(parent);
> - }
> + dsi_lanes = drm_of_get_data_lanes_count(endpoint, 1, 4);
> +
> + /* Quirk old dtb: Use data lanes from the DSI host side instead of
> bridge */
> + if (dsi_lanes == -EINVAL || dsi_lanes == -ENODEV) {
> + remote = of_graph_get_remote_endpoint(endpoint);
> + dsi_lanes = drm_of_get_data_lanes_count(remote, 1, 4);
> + of_node_put(remote);
> + if (dsi_lanes >= 1)
> + dev_warn(tc->dev, "missing dsi-lanes property for the
> bridge\n");
It wasn't obvious what this warning should tell me at first. Maybe
add something like ". Falling back to the property of the remote
endpoint". A little verbose, maybe you could come up with a more
dense wording.
In any case,
Reviewed-by: Michael Walle <mwa...@kernel.org>
-michael
