Implementation of partial update in DPU DRM is heavily
dependent on custom properties and dsi hooks. Removing the
support for now. We may need to revisit the support in the
future.
Change-Id: Idd87272fe4d4c0a26fcb405154c0605af1edf1ba
Signed-off-by: Jeykumar Sankaran
---
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/
compile out partial update related changes from dsi-staging
since the DPU dependencies are getting removed.
Change-Id: I02462f520cdf99c8445b18e60212ca46155f9710
Signed-off-by: Jeykumar Sankaran
---
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi-staging/dsi_display.c | 9 +++--
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi-staging/dsi_
Patch series to remove partial update support form DPU DRM and dsi-staging.
First set of patches towards getting rid of dpu_connector ops.
Jeykumar Sankaran (2):
drm/msm/dsi-staging: compile out partial update path
drm/msm: remove partial update support
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_conn
On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 04:01:19PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> From: Sricharan R
>
> The smmu device probe/remove and add/remove master device callbacks
> gets called when the smmu is not linked to its master, that is without
> the context of the master device. So calling runtime apis in those p
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 03:08:55PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Sean Paul wrote:
> > Somehow this got lost, put it back. We might want to re-evaluate whether
> > this is actually necessary, but for now let's actually use the thing.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Paul
>
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 03:02:44PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 2:43 PM, Sean Paul wrote:
> > It's never set to true, so none of this code is ever run.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Paul
>
> I guess if it was ever set to true, that got ripped out with the
> secure buffer suppo
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Sean Paul wrote:
> Somehow this got lost, put it back. We might want to re-evaluate whether
> this is actually necessary, but for now let's actually use the thing.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul
we might need this atm, although I'd prefer trying to move back to
or
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 1:40 PM, Sean Paul wrote:
> These were added with the rest of the DPU patches, but they're unused.
> There's no reason to add them unless someone is actually interested in
> sending them. So for now, remove them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul
Reviewed-by: Rob Clark
> ---
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 2:43 PM, Sean Paul wrote:
> It's never set to true, so none of this code is ever run.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul
I guess if it was ever set to true, that got ripped out with the
secure buffer support. And when that ever gets re-introduced, I hope
we can avoid the need
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Sean Paul wrote:
> We need to have a discussion about how to introduce this in a way that
> it can be leveraged by other platforms/userspaces. For now, remove
> support since we don't need it yet.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul
Agreed..
Reviewed-by: Rob Clark
>
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Sean Paul wrote:
> msm/dsi already formats the packet header correctly, so this breaks
> every driver except for the downstream dsi-staging driver (which I've
> submitted a patch for).
>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Paul
Reviewed-by: Rob Clark
> ---
> drivers/gpu/dr
msm/dsi already formats the packet header correctly, so this breaks
every driver except for the downstream dsi-staging driver (which I've
submitted a patch for).
Signed-off-by: Sean Paul
---
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.c | 10 +-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --g
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:42 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> [sorry, I had intended to reply sooner but clearly forgot]
>>
>>
>> On 16/02/18 00:13, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:14 AM, Robin Murphy
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> [sorry, I had intended to reply sooner but clearly forgot]
>
>
> On 16/02/18 00:13, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:14 AM, Robin Murphy
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 15/02/18 04:17, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>> [...]
>
>
> Co
[sorry, I had intended to reply sooner but clearly forgot]
On 16/02/18 00:13, Tomasz Figa wrote:
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:14 AM, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 15/02/18 04:17, Tomasz Figa wrote:
[...]
Could you elaborate on what kind of locking you are concerned about?
As I explained before, the no
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:14 AM, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> On 15/02/18 04:17, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>> [...]
>
> Could you elaborate on what kind of locking you are concerned about?
>
Hi Pavel,
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 10:19:55PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
...
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/imx/gpc.c b/drivers/soc/imx/gpc.c
> index 53f7275..cfb42f5 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/imx/gpc.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/imx/gpc.c
> @@ -348,7 +348,7 @@ static int imx_gpc_old_dt_init(struct device *d
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:14 AM, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> On 15/02/18 04:17, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> [...]
Could you elaborate on what kind of locking you are concerned about?
As I explained before, the normally happening fast path
18 matches
Mail list logo
