* [PATCH] drm/bridge: analogix: Don't return -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in PSR functions @ 2016-12-02 2:32 zain wang 2016-12-02 3:54 ` Archit Taneja 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: zain wang @ 2016-12-02 2:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sean Paul, Daniel Vetter, Inki Dae, David Airlie Cc: Tomeu Vizoso, Mika Kahola, Stéphane Marchesin, Tomasz Figa, dianders, Thierry Reding, Krzysztof Kozlowski, Heiko Stuebner, Jingoo Han, Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel, dri-devel, linux-samsung-soc, linux-rockchip, zain wang 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@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; /* 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"); } /* -- 1.9.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge: analogix: Don't return -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in PSR functions 2016-12-02 2:32 [PATCH] drm/bridge: analogix: Don't return -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in PSR functions zain wang @ 2016-12-02 3:54 ` Archit Taneja 2016-12-02 16:03 ` Sean Paul 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Archit Taneja @ 2016-12-02 3:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zain wang, Sean Paul, Daniel Vetter, Inki Dae, David Airlie Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc, Tomeu Vizoso, linux-rockchip, Jingoo Han, dianders, dri-devel, Tomasz Figa, Javier Martinez Canillas, Mika Kahola, Stéphane Marchesin, Thierry Reding, linux-kernel 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@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. > > /* 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 _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge: analogix: Don't return -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in PSR functions 2016-12-02 3:54 ` Archit Taneja @ 2016-12-02 16:03 ` Sean Paul 2016-12-05 3:13 ` Archit Taneja 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Sean Paul @ 2016-12-02 16:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Archit Taneja Cc: zain wang, Daniel Vetter, Inki Dae, David Airlie, Tomeu Vizoso, Mika Kahola, Stéphane Marchesin, Tomasz Figa, Doug Anderson, Thierry Reding, Krzysztof Kozlowski, Heiko Stuebner, Jingoo Han, Javier Martinez Canillas, Linux Kernel Mailing List, dri-devel, linux-samsung-soc, linux-rockchip On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Archit Taneja <architt@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@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge: analogix: Don't return -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in PSR functions 2016-12-02 16:03 ` Sean Paul @ 2016-12-05 3:13 ` Archit Taneja 2016-12-05 17:28 ` Sean Paul 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Archit Taneja @ 2016-12-05 3:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sean Paul Cc: zain wang, Daniel Vetter, Inki Dae, David Airlie, Tomeu Vizoso, Mika Kahola, Stéphane Marchesin, Tomasz Figa, Doug Anderson, Thierry Reding, Krzysztof Kozlowski, Heiko Stuebner, Jingoo Han, Javier Martinez Canillas, Linux Kernel Mailing List, dri-devel, linux-samsung-soc, linux-rockchip On 12/02/2016 09:33 PM, Sean Paul wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Archit Taneja <architt@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@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. Okay, thanks for the explanation. The dev_warn() below still seems unnecessary, right? Archit > > 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 -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge: analogix: Don't return -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in PSR functions 2016-12-05 3:13 ` Archit Taneja @ 2016-12-05 17:28 ` Sean Paul [not found] ` <CAOw6vbLv_q8XPj4_A7Yx1HaVVkdUTeq9=EHAjtJd7bOge2C21Q-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Sean Paul @ 2016-12-05 17:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Archit Taneja Cc: zain wang, Daniel Vetter, Inki Dae, David Airlie, Tomeu Vizoso, Mika Kahola, Stéphane Marchesin, Tomasz Figa, Doug Anderson, Thierry Reding, Krzysztof Kozlowski, Heiko Stuebner, Jingoo Han, Javier Martinez Canillas, Linux Kernel Mailing List, dri-devel, linux-samsung-soc, linux-rockchip On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Archit Taneja <architt@codeaurora.org> wrote: > > > On 12/02/2016 09:33 PM, Sean Paul wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Archit Taneja <architt@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@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. > > > Okay, thanks for the explanation. The dev_warn() below still seems > unnecessary, right? > Yeah, one could make a case for dev_info (disclaimer: I have a high tolerance for noisy logs), but a warning does seem excessive. Sean > Archit > > >> >> 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 > > > -- > Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, > a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CAOw6vbLv_q8XPj4_A7Yx1HaVVkdUTeq9=EHAjtJd7bOge2C21Q-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge: analogix: Don't return -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in PSR functions [not found] ` <CAOw6vbLv_q8XPj4_A7Yx1HaVVkdUTeq9=EHAjtJd7bOge2C21Q-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> @ 2016-12-07 0:45 ` Zain Wang 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Zain Wang @ 2016-12-07 0:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-rockchip-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r 在 2016/12/6 1:28, Sean Paul 写道: > On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Archit Taneja <architt@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> >> On 12/02/2016 09:33 PM, Sean Paul wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Archit Taneja <architt@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@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. >> >> Okay, thanks for the explanation. The dev_warn() below still seems >> unnecessary, right? >> > Yeah, one could make a case for dev_info (disclaimer: I have a high > tolerance for noisy logs), but a warning does seem excessive. > > Sean OK, I will remove the dev_warn since there is a dev_dbg for the same case. > >> Archit >> >> >>> 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 >> >> -- >> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, >> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project > _______________________________________________ > Linux-rockchip mailing list > Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip > > > _______________________________________________ Linux-rockchip mailing list Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-12-07 0:45 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-12-02 2:32 [PATCH] drm/bridge: analogix: Don't return -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in PSR functions zain wang
2016-12-02 3:54 ` Archit Taneja
2016-12-02 16:03 ` Sean Paul
2016-12-05 3:13 ` Archit Taneja
2016-12-05 17:28 ` Sean Paul
[not found] ` <CAOw6vbLv_q8XPj4_A7Yx1HaVVkdUTeq9=EHAjtJd7bOge2C21Q-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2016-12-07 0:45 ` Zain Wang
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox