Hello Dmitry,
> How is it so? I don't see any specific requirements on the TIDSS side.
Seems right, must've been a mistake on my end
> I think that's a separate topic. Bridge drivers don't have to implement
> atomic_check. In fact, if you check the latest LT9611 driver, it has dropped
> the .a
On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 09:04:47AM +, Jesse Van Gavere wrote:
> Hello Dmitry,
>
> ...
>
> > The atomic_check() function verifies if the passed set of changes (in the
> > form of drm_*_state) is valid from the driver's point of view. If you have
> > nothing to check, it's fine to skip the fu
Hello Dmitry,
...
> The atomic_check() function verifies if the passed set of changes (in the
> form of drm_*_state) is valid from the driver's point of view. If you have
> nothing to check, it's fine to skip the function.
...
Perhaps one last question on the use of atomic_check, this functio
Hello Dmitry,
> The atomic_check() function verifies if the passed set of changes (in the
> form of drm_*_state) is valid from the driver's point of view. If you have
> nothing to check, it's fine to skip the function.
I'll look over the other examples a bit then but I think the reason for
imp
On Sat, Dec 28, 2024 at 09:20:17PM +, Jesse Van Gavere wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> (Hope this is not a duplicate as my first mail didn't seem to have
> gone through) For one of our new boards I have to get the ADV7513 chip
> working with TIDSS, the driver for this expects a bridge chip to have
> ato
