From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bali.collaboradmins.com (bali.collaboradmins.com [148.251.105.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 194AD22DFA2 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:07:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.251.105.195 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749632834; cv=none; b=J0Q8z2f4Lba1ea1o8zU2vZzVyfNPvGwaA87T9agFvbPGw9EmiWxbDAJcIq/M3FlE1FdkoeOKuRaJOfyGj7ZnwuGmC3wemgzJus9US0+rXgg4lEfhRscRAjbS2cBQyHxEH/FxI0ajc+iO4q49pa5tHxFN9vkVdJ1M9boYDUxNHmE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749632834; c=relaxed/simple; bh=3Ip4QlReFFhe2GLgKmX5HdTzhz5q7Ydnp6NSKHxRFlA=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=oBCREa4h0iRKQ62ZSIoW1pGo0jvONiXUOLOOP2e+DzJX246PCnaBSeMXP+Vua8jQjuE98PKW6IGuIzfLw7BbKdiILASIWa3scPf3Xz1tPPAfx7jJmCVFDDUB76CzUhJ4pWM5jViynMsOJKGwlDwPKjLyXCXWnI1e0FduilogPxI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=collabora.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=collabora.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=collabora.com header.i=@collabora.com header.b=oeBR2Cdk; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.251.105.195 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=collabora.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=collabora.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=collabora.com header.i=@collabora.com header.b="oeBR2Cdk" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=collabora.com; s=mail; t=1749632830; bh=3Ip4QlReFFhe2GLgKmX5HdTzhz5q7Ydnp6NSKHxRFlA=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=oeBR2Cdkvw5FS5Uj+EMSWDpyYAIRfmum/UQEmEmc2NH+uR3ykyn782Cwk++CJV68w lTMYB9QLbBFILVapHjXCVkxxn5HO6MNp5wabOBINNpPKg+zMFNdNpnUQQOPFquqLki G9rTB3wl25n8txJ16MHKJVl39rzd4R5a7jQNZGPJTpKr3oTnBa56QUxTzwSUsiih8j SMDxAGmHpK87FuHPmv3PDqQLHn0otU7xM6ldZhTSKbLwT/3bCNvLeBHqWQLz7BaQSv Z/n5sTMwJwpoIo4bJVvlISXhbuZrlJieYT/6XSceGYnn42SPeGunysx+E0yd0dHrTw a5EWbwjgoQwkA== Received: from [192.168.1.100] (2-237-20-237.ip236.fastwebnet.it [2.237.20.237]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: kholk11) by bali.collaboradmins.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 858FC17E1045; Wed, 11 Jun 2025 11:07:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 11:07:08 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/mediatek: mtk_dpi: Reorder output formats on MT8195/88 To: Louis-Alexis Eyraud , Chun-Kuang Hu , Philipp Zabel , David Airlie , Simona Vetter , Matthias Brugger Cc: kernel@collabora.com, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org References: <20250606-mtk_dpi-mt8195-fix-wrong-color-v1-1-47988101b798@collabora.com> From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <20250606-mtk_dpi-mt8195-fix-wrong-color-v1-1-47988101b798@collabora.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Il 06/06/25 14:50, Louis-Alexis Eyraud ha scritto: > Reorder output format arrays in both MT8195 DPI and DP_INTF block > configuration by decreasing preference order instead of alphanumeric > one, as expected by the atomic_get_output_bus_fmts callback function > of drm_bridge controls, so the RGB ones are used first during the > bus format negotiation process. > > Fixes: 20fa6a8fc588 ("drm/mediatek: mtk_dpi: Allow additional output formats on MT8195/88") > Signed-off-by: Louis-Alexis Eyraud Well actually there is a way to make this still behave while having those alphabetically sorted, which I was thinking that was already properly implemented for MediaTek drivers. Apparently it's not true for *all* of them... but then, just keeping things ordered by preference is a simpler solution and probably the best one for now. Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno