在 2017-06-07 22:38，Maxime Ripard 写道：

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 06:01:02PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:

quoted

quoted

I have no idea what this is supposed to be doing either.

I might be wrong, but I really feel like there's a big mismatch
between your commit log, and what you actually implement.

In your commit log, you should state:

A) What is the current behaviour
B) Why that is a problem
C) How do you address it

And you don't.

However, after discussing it with Chen-Yu, it seems like you're trying
to have all the mixers probed before the TCONs. If that is so, there's
nothing specific to the H3 here, and we also have the same issue on
dual-pipeline DE1 (A10, A20, A31). Chen-Yu worked on that a bit, but
the easiest solution would be to move from a DFS algorithm to walk
down the graph to a BFS one.

That way, we would add all mixers first, then the TCONs, then the
encoders, and the component framework will probe them in order.

No. I said that they're swappable, however, I don't want to
implement the swap now, but hardcode 0-0 1-1 connection.

We're on the same page, it's definitely not what I was mentionning
here. This would require a significant rework, and the usecase is
still unclear for now.

quoted

However, as you and Chen-Yu said, device tree should reflect the
real hardware, there will be bonus endpoints for the swapped
connection.

If by bonus you mean connections from mixer 0 to tcon 1 and mixer 1 to
tcon 0, then yes, we're going to need it.

quoted

What I want to do is to ignore the bonus connection, in order to
prevent them from confusing the code.

If you just change the bind sequence, I think it cannot be
prevented that wrong connections will be bound.

This is where I don't follow you anymore. The component framework
doesn't list connections but devices. The swapped connections do not
matter here, we have the same set of devices: mixer0, mixer1, tcon0
and tcon1.

The thing that does change with your patch is that before, the binding
sequence would have been mixer0, tcon0, tcon1, mixer1. With your
patch, it's mixer0, tcon0, mixer1, tcon1.

So, again, stating what issue you were seeing before making this patch
would be very helpful to see what you're trying to do / fix.

So maybe I can drop the forward search (searching output) code, and keep
only the backward search (search input) code in TCON?

Forward search code is only used when binding, but backward search is 
used
for TCON to find connected mixer.

Maxime

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "linux-sunxi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to linux-sunxi+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.