| Message ID | 20190225125637.3330-1-hdegoede@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Mainlined |
| Commit | 09fed4d64d3f1c3f9296d3f67eb19c8bf4b1c0c1 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | usb: typec: altmodes/displayport: Fall back to multi-func pins | expand |
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 01:56:37PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > If our port-partner supports both DP-only operation (pin-assignment C) > and multi-func operation (pin-assignment D) and we only support > pin-assignment D and the port-partner prefers DP-only mode, then > before this commit we would and up masking out pin-assignment D from > the available pin-assignments and fail to pick a pin-assignment. > > Instead only mask out the multi-func pin-assignments if we support > dp-only pin-assignments, so that we correctly fall-back to a multi-func > pin-assignment in this case (by picking pin-assignment D). > > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Should this be handled as a fix? > --- > drivers/usb/typec/altmodes/displayport.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/altmodes/displayport.c b/drivers/usb/typec/altmodes/displayport.c > index 3f06e94771a7..35161594e368 100644 > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/altmodes/displayport.c > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/altmodes/displayport.c > @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ static int dp_altmode_configure(struct dp_altmode *dp, u8 con) > if (dp->data.status & DP_STATUS_PREFER_MULTI_FUNC && > pin_assign & DP_PIN_ASSIGN_MULTI_FUNC_MASK) > pin_assign &= DP_PIN_ASSIGN_MULTI_FUNC_MASK; > - else > + else if (pin_assign & DP_PIN_ASSIGN_DP_ONLY_MASK) > pin_assign &= DP_PIN_ASSIGN_DP_ONLY_MASK; > > if (!pin_assign) > -- > 2.20.1 thanks,
Hi Heikki, On 25-02-19 16:49, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 01:56:37PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: >> If our port-partner supports both DP-only operation (pin-assignment C) >> and multi-func operation (pin-assignment D) and we only support >> pin-assignment D and the port-partner prefers DP-only mode, then >> before this commit we would and up masking out pin-assignment D from >> the available pin-assignments and fail to pick a pin-assignment. >> >> Instead only mask out the multi-func pin-assignments if we support >> dp-only pin-assignments, so that we correctly fall-back to a multi-func >> pin-assignment in this case (by picking pin-assignment D). >> >> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> > > Should this be handled as a fix? AFAIK they are no users if this yet, until we've agreement on the DT bindings and code merged for adding alt-modes to an usb-connector node, nothing will be using this code, so I see little use in adding a Cc: stable or some such. Regards, Hans > >> --- >> drivers/usb/typec/altmodes/displayport.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/altmodes/displayport.c b/drivers/usb/typec/altmodes/displayport.c >> index 3f06e94771a7..35161594e368 100644 >> --- a/drivers/usb/typec/altmodes/displayport.c >> +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/altmodes/displayport.c >> @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ static int dp_altmode_configure(struct dp_altmode *dp, u8 con) >> if (dp->data.status & DP_STATUS_PREFER_MULTI_FUNC && >> pin_assign & DP_PIN_ASSIGN_MULTI_FUNC_MASK) >> pin_assign &= DP_PIN_ASSIGN_MULTI_FUNC_MASK; >> - else >> + else if (pin_assign & DP_PIN_ASSIGN_DP_ONLY_MASK) >> pin_assign &= DP_PIN_ASSIGN_DP_ONLY_MASK; >> >> if (!pin_assign) >> -- >> 2.20.1 > > thanks, >
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 07:50:32PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi Heikki, > > On 25-02-19 16:49, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 01:56:37PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > If our port-partner supports both DP-only operation (pin-assignment C) > > > and multi-func operation (pin-assignment D) and we only support > > > pin-assignment D and the port-partner prefers DP-only mode, then > > > before this commit we would and up masking out pin-assignment D from > > > the available pin-assignments and fail to pick a pin-assignment. > > > > > > Instead only mask out the multi-func pin-assignments if we support > > > dp-only pin-assignments, so that we correctly fall-back to a multi-func > > > pin-assignment in this case (by picking pin-assignment D). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> > > > > Should this be handled as a fix? > > AFAIK they are no users if this yet, until we've agreement > on the DT bindings and code merged for adding alt-modes > to an usb-connector node, nothing will be using this code, > so I see little use in adding a Cc: stable or some such. True. thanks,
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 01:56:37PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > If our port-partner supports both DP-only operation (pin-assignment C) > and multi-func operation (pin-assignment D) and we only support > pin-assignment D and the port-partner prefers DP-only mode, then > before this commit we would and up masking out pin-assignment D from > the available pin-assignments and fail to pick a pin-assignment. > > Instead only mask out the multi-func pin-assignments if we support > dp-only pin-assignments, so that we correctly fall-back to a multi-func > pin-assignment in this case (by picking pin-assignment D). > > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Acked-by: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com> > --- > drivers/usb/typec/altmodes/displayport.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/altmodes/displayport.c b/drivers/usb/typec/altmodes/displayport.c > index 3f06e94771a7..35161594e368 100644 > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/altmodes/displayport.c > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/altmodes/displayport.c > @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ static int dp_altmode_configure(struct dp_altmode *dp, u8 con) > if (dp->data.status & DP_STATUS_PREFER_MULTI_FUNC && > pin_assign & DP_PIN_ASSIGN_MULTI_FUNC_MASK) > pin_assign &= DP_PIN_ASSIGN_MULTI_FUNC_MASK; > - else > + else if (pin_assign & DP_PIN_ASSIGN_DP_ONLY_MASK) > pin_assign &= DP_PIN_ASSIGN_DP_ONLY_MASK; > > if (!pin_assign) > -- > 2.20.1 thanks,
diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/altmodes/displayport.c b/drivers/usb/typec/altmodes/displayport.c index 3f06e94771a7..35161594e368 100644 --- a/drivers/usb/typec/altmodes/displayport.c +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/altmodes/displayport.c @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ static int dp_altmode_configure(struct dp_altmode *dp, u8 con) if (dp->data.status & DP_STATUS_PREFER_MULTI_FUNC && pin_assign & DP_PIN_ASSIGN_MULTI_FUNC_MASK) pin_assign &= DP_PIN_ASSIGN_MULTI_FUNC_MASK; - else + else if (pin_assign & DP_PIN_ASSIGN_DP_ONLY_MASK) pin_assign &= DP_PIN_ASSIGN_DP_ONLY_MASK; if (!pin_assign)
If our port-partner supports both DP-only operation (pin-assignment C) and multi-func operation (pin-assignment D) and we only support pin-assignment D and the port-partner prefers DP-only mode, then before this commit we would and up masking out pin-assignment D from the available pin-assignments and fail to pick a pin-assignment. Instead only mask out the multi-func pin-assignments if we support dp-only pin-assignments, so that we correctly fall-back to a multi-func pin-assignment in this case (by picking pin-assignment D). Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> --- drivers/usb/typec/altmodes/displayport.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)