Hi,
On Sun, Feb 6, 2022 at 7:44 AM Sam Ravnborg sam@ravnborg.org wrote:
Move away from the deprecated enable/diable operations in drm_bridge_funcs and enable atomic use.
Signed-off-by: Sam Ravnborg sam@ravnborg.org Cc: Douglas Anderson dianders@chromium.org Cc: Andrzej Hajda a.hajda@samsung.com Cc: Neil Armstrong narmstrong@baylibre.com Cc: Robert Foss robert.foss@linaro.org Cc: Laurent Pinchart Laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com Cc: Jonas Karlman jonas@kwiboo.se Cc: Jernej Skrabec jernej.skrabec@gmail.com
drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 21 +++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c index ba136a188be7..d681ab68205c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c @@ -796,7 +796,8 @@ ti_sn_bridge_mode_valid(struct drm_bridge *bridge, return MODE_OK; }
-static void ti_sn_bridge_disable(struct drm_bridge *bridge) +static void ti_sn_bridge_atomic_disable(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
struct drm_bridge_state *old_bridge_state){ struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata = bridge_to_ti_sn65dsi86(bridge);
@@ -1055,7 +1056,8 @@ static int ti_sn_link_training(struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata, int dp_rate_idx, return ret; }
-static void ti_sn_bridge_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge) +static void ti_sn_bridge_atomic_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
struct drm_bridge_state *old_bridge_state){ struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata = bridge_to_ti_sn65dsi86(bridge); const char *last_err_str = "No supported DP rate"; @@ -1124,7 +1126,8 @@ static void ti_sn_bridge_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge) VSTREAM_ENABLE); }
-static void ti_sn_bridge_pre_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge) +static void ti_sn_bridge_atomic_pre_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
struct drm_bridge_state *old_bridge_state){ struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata = bridge_to_ti_sn65dsi86(bridge);
@@ -1137,7 +1140,8 @@ static void ti_sn_bridge_pre_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge) usleep_range(100, 110); }
-static void ti_sn_bridge_post_disable(struct drm_bridge *bridge) +static void ti_sn_bridge_atomic_post_disable(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
struct drm_bridge_state *old_bridge_state){ struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata = bridge_to_ti_sn65dsi86(bridge);
@@ -1158,10 +1162,11 @@ static const struct drm_bridge_funcs ti_sn_bridge_funcs = { .attach = ti_sn_bridge_attach, .detach = ti_sn_bridge_detach, .mode_valid = ti_sn_bridge_mode_valid,
.pre_enable = ti_sn_bridge_pre_enable,.enable = ti_sn_bridge_enable,.disable = ti_sn_bridge_disable,.post_disable = ti_sn_bridge_post_disable,
.atomic_pre_enable = ti_sn_bridge_atomic_pre_enable,.atomic_enable = ti_sn_atomic_bridge_enable,.atomic_disable = ti_sn_atomic_bridge_disable,.atomic_post_disable = ti_sn_bridge_post_disable,
Compiler doesn't like the fact that you are inconsistent about whether it's "atomic_bridge" or "bridge_atomic". Probably should settle on "bridge_atomic"? ...and the "post_disable" needs "atomic" in the name...
DRM_BRIDGE_STATE_OPS,
Wow, is it really that simple? I guess it seems to work OK...
Since I don't actually know tons about atomic and whether this is enough, consider my Reviewed-by tag to be pretty weak. That being said, this _seems_ right to me?
So once it compiles then I'm fine w/ my (weak) Reviewed-by and my Tested-by.
-Doug