[PATCH] drm/bridge: analogix: Don't return -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in PSR functions

[Sean Paul]

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Archit Taneja <architt at codeaurora.org> wrote:
> 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 <wzz at 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.
>

Hi Archit,

This was my first impression, too, and the complexity of the various
psr abstraction layers don't help :)

However, this code path will be hit if the source supports psr, but
the sink doesn't. The rockchip_drm_psr code doesn't know if the sink
supports psr, so it will end up calling this.

Sean


>>
>>         /* 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