Hi Heiko,
On 2025/7/10 3:58, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> Hi Damon,
>
> Am Mittwoch, 9. Juli 2025, 09:01:32 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit schrieb Damon Ding:
>> The &analogix_dp_plat_data.skip_connector related check can be replaced
>> by &analogix_dp_plat_data.bridge.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Damon Ding <damon.ding@rock-chips.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp.c | 1 -
>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp.c
>> index 9d7d3f009e58..9e1313fdecad 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_dp.c
>> @@ -237,7 +237,6 @@ static int exynos_dp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> dp->plat_data.power_off = exynos_dp_poweroff;
>> dp->plat_data.attach = exynos_dp_bridge_attach;
>> dp->plat_data.get_modes = exynos_dp_get_modes;
>> - dp->plat_data.skip_connector = !!bridge;
>>
>> out:
>> dp->adp = analogix_dp_probe(dev, &dp->plat_data);
>>
>
> I think you might want to merge
> - drm/exynos: exynos_dp: Remove redundant &analogix_dp_plat_data.skip_connector
> - drm/bridge: analogix_dp: Remove redundant &analogix_dp_plat_data.skip_connector
>
> Because when separate this creates a bisection issue.
> Like when a bisect happens to land directly on this commit, you already have
> removed the exynos assignment, but the updated check from the following patch
> is not yet in place.
>
>
Oh, I see. Squashing related commits together would be better.
Best regards,
Damon