Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 31 Aug 2020 02:47:34 +0200 | From | Paul Cercueil <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/ingenic: Fix driver not probing when IPU port is missing |
| |
Le dim. 30 août 2020 à 21:21, Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar> a écrit : > Hi Paul, > > On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 09:04, Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net> > wrote: >> >> Even if support for the IPU was compiled in, we may run on a device >> (e.g. the Qi LB60) where the IPU is not available, or simply with >> an old >> devicetree without the IPU node. In that case the ingenic-drm >> refused to >> probe. >> >> Fix the driver so that it will probe even if the IPU node is not >> present >> in devicetree (but then IPU support is disabled of course). >> >> v2: Take a different approach >> >> Fixes: fc1acf317b01 ("drm/ingenic: Add support for the IPU") >> Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/ingenic/ingenic-drm-drv.c | 19 +++++++++++-------- >> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ingenic/ingenic-drm-drv.c >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/ingenic/ingenic-drm-drv.c >> index c1bcb93aed2d..b7074161ccf0 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ingenic/ingenic-drm-drv.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ingenic/ingenic-drm-drv.c >> @@ -673,7 +673,7 @@ static void ingenic_drm_unbind_all(void *d) >> component_unbind_all(priv->dev, &priv->drm); >> } >> >> -static int ingenic_drm_bind(struct device *dev) >> +static int ingenic_drm_bind(struct device *dev, bool >> has_components) >> { >> struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev); >> const struct jz_soc_info *soc_info; >> @@ -808,7 +808,7 @@ static int ingenic_drm_bind(struct device *dev) >> return ret; >> } >> >> - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_INGENIC_IPU)) { >> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_INGENIC_IPU) && >> has_components) { >> ret = component_bind_all(dev, drm); >> if (ret) { >> if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER) >> @@ -939,6 +939,11 @@ static int ingenic_drm_bind(struct device *dev) >> return ret; >> } >> >> +static int ingenic_drm_bind_with_components(struct device *dev) >> +{ >> + return ingenic_drm_bind(dev, true); >> +} >> + >> static int compare_of(struct device *dev, void *data) >> { >> return dev->of_node == data; >> @@ -957,7 +962,7 @@ static void ingenic_drm_unbind(struct device >> *dev) >> } >> >> static const struct component_master_ops ingenic_master_ops = { >> - .bind = ingenic_drm_bind, >> + .bind = ingenic_drm_bind_with_components, >> .unbind = ingenic_drm_unbind, >> }; >> >> @@ -968,14 +973,12 @@ static int ingenic_drm_probe(struct >> platform_device *pdev) >> struct device_node *np; >> >> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_INGENIC_IPU)) >> - return ingenic_drm_bind(dev); >> + return ingenic_drm_bind(dev, false); >> >> /* IPU is at port address 8 */ >> np = of_graph_get_remote_node(dev->of_node, 8, 0); > > How about we get rid of this (seems a bit odd to rely on port > address) ? > Rockchip-drm driver has a nice approach, and I think we might need > something like that going forward, to support dw-hdmi.
The rockchip-drm approach works because all the sub-drivers must probe. In the case of ingenic-drm, even if the ingenic-drm driver was compiled with the ipu and dw-hdmi sub-drivers, you can't rely on these probing, as they are not present on e.g. the JZ4740.
Cheers, -Paul
| |