Hi,
On 12/02/2016 08:02 AM, zain wang wrote:
We will ignored PSR setting if panel not support it. So, in this case, we should
return from analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr() without any error code.
Let's retrun 0 instead of -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in
analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr().
Signed-off-by: zain wang <w...@rock-chips.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c
index 6e0447f..0cb3695 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c
@@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ int analogix_dp_enable_psr(struct device *dev)
struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc;
if (!dp->psr_support)
- return -EINVAL;
+ return 0;
Looking at the rockchip analogix dp code, in analogix_dp_psr_set, the worker
that calls
analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr isn't even if psr isn't enabled. So, the bridge
funcs
shouldn't be called in the first place. I think the error handling is fine to
have
here.
/* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */
memset(&psr_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc));
@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ int analogix_dp_disable_psr(struct device *dev)
struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc;
if (!dp->psr_support)
- return -EINVAL;
+ return 0;
/* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */
memset(&psr_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc));
@@ -878,6 +878,8 @@ static void analogix_dp_commit(struct analogix_dp_device
*dp)
dp->psr_support = analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr(dp);
if (dp->psr_support)
analogix_dp_enable_sink_psr(dp);
+ else
+ dev_warn(dp->dev, "Sink not support PSR\n");
This doesn't seem beneficial either. There seems to be a debug
print already in analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr which reports PSR
related info.
Archit
}
/*
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
