Re: [PATCH v2 03/12] drm/bridge: tc358768: Fix bit updates

From: Tomi Valkeinen
Date: Tue Aug 22 2023 - 12:13:46 EST


On 22/08/2023 01:22, Maxim Schwalm wrote:
Hi Tomi,

On 16.08.23 13:25, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
The driver has a few places where it does:

if (thing_is_enabled_in_config)
update_thing_bit_in_hw()

This means that if the thing is _not_ enabled, the bit never gets
cleared. This affects the h/vsyncs and continuous DSI clock bits.

Fix the driver to always update the bit.

Fixes: ff1ca6397b1d ("drm/bridge: Add tc358768 driver")
Signed-off-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/tc358768.c | 13 +++++++------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/tc358768.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/tc358768.c
index bc97a837955b..b668f77673c3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/tc358768.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/tc358768.c
@@ -794,8 +794,8 @@ static void tc358768_bridge_pre_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
val |= BIT(i + 1);
tc358768_write(priv, TC358768_HSTXVREGEN, val);
- if (!(mode_flags & MIPI_DSI_CLOCK_NON_CONTINUOUS))
- tc358768_write(priv, TC358768_TXOPTIONCNTRL, 0x1);
+ tc358768_write(priv, TC358768_TXOPTIONCNTRL,
+ (mode_flags & MIPI_DSI_CLOCK_NON_CONTINUOUS) ? 0 : BIT(0));
/* TXTAGOCNT[26:16] RXTASURECNT[10:0] */
val = tc358768_to_ns((lptxcnt + 1) * dsibclk_nsk * 4);
@@ -861,11 +861,12 @@ static void tc358768_bridge_pre_enable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
tc358768_write(priv, TC358768_DSI_HACT, hact);
/* VSYNC polarity */
- if (!(mode->flags & DRM_MODE_FLAG_NVSYNC))
- tc358768_update_bits(priv, TC358768_CONFCTL, BIT(5), BIT(5));
+ tc358768_update_bits(priv, TC358768_CONFCTL, BIT(5),
+ (mode->flags & DRM_MODE_FLAG_PVSYNC) ? BIT(5) : 0);
+
/* HSYNC polarity */
- if (mode->flags & DRM_MODE_FLAG_PHSYNC)
- tc358768_update_bits(priv, TC358768_PP_MISC, BIT(0), BIT(0));
+ tc358768_update_bits(priv, TC358768_PP_MISC, BIT(0),
+ (mode->flags & DRM_MODE_FLAG_PHSYNC) ? BIT(0) : 0);
/* Start DSI Tx */
tc358768_write(priv, TC358768_DSI_START, 0x1);


shouldn't the last patch of this series be moved before this one?
Currently, this patch will still lead to a temporary regression until
patch #12 is applied.

Indeed, good point. I'll change the patch order.

Tomi