Quoting Laurent Pinchart (2021-03-17 17:20:43)
Hi Stephen,
Reviving a bit of an old thread, for a question.
On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 10:11:43AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
@@ -265,6 +267,23 @@ connector_to_ti_sn_bridge(struct drm_connector *connector) static int ti_sn_bridge_connector_get_modes(struct drm_connector *connector) { struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata = connector_to_ti_sn_bridge(connector);
struct edid *edid = pdata->edid;int num, ret;if (!edid) {pm_runtime_get_sync(pdata->dev);edid = pdata->edid = drm_get_edid(connector, &pdata->aux.ddc);pm_runtime_put(pdata->dev);Is there any specific reason to use the indirect access method, compared to the direct method that translates access to an I2C ancillary address to an I2C-over-AUX transaction (see page 20 of SLLSEH2B) ? The direct method seems it would be more efficient.
No I don't think it matters. I was just using the existing support code that Sean wrote instead of digging into the details. Maybe Sean ran into something earlier and abandoned that approach?