[PATCH 8/8] drm/bridge: it66121: Allow link this driver as a lib

[Sui Jingfeng]

On 2023/11/24 16:13, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 03:51:00PM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2023/11/24 15:38, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 01:52:26AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
>>>> On 2023/11/23 16:08, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>>> I'm agree with the idea that drm bridges drivers involved toward to a direction
>>>>>> that support more complex design, but I think we should also leave a way for the
>>>>>> most frequent use case. Make it straight-forward as a canonical design.
>>>>> Not having anything connector-related in the drm_bridge driver is a
>>>>> canonical design.
>>>> What you said is just for the more complex uses case. I can't agree, sorry.
>>>>
>>>> By choosing the word "canonical design", I means that the most frequently used
>>>> cases in practice are the canonical design, 95+% motherboards I have seen has
>>>> only one *onboard* display bridges chip. For my driver, I abstract the internal
>>>> (inside of the chip) encoder as drm_encoder and abstract the external TX chip as
>>>> drm_bridge, this design still works very well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Originally, I means that this is a concept of the hardware design.
>>>> You are wrong even through in the software design context, the
>>>> transparent simple drm bridge drivers(simple-bridge.c) also *allow*
>>>> to create drm connector manually. I don't think I need to emulate
>>>> more example, please read the code by youself.
>> 'emulate' -> 'enumerate'
>>
>>> Ok. That's it. We've been patient long enough. You have been given a
>>> review and a list of things to fix for your driver to be merged.
>> This series is not relevant to my driver, can we please *limit* the
>> discussion to this series?
> Right, I conflated the two, I meant this series, or the general goal to
> enable that bridge with your driver. The rest of the driver is of course
> unaffected.
>
>>> Whether you follow them or not is your decision.
>> I'm not saying that I will not follow, just to make sure what's
>> solution is you want. I need discussion to figure out.
> You had direct, repeated, feedback on that already by a maintainer and
> one of the most experienced dev and reviewer on bridges. If you need
> more guidance, you can definitely ask questions, but asking questions
> and telling them they are wrong is very different.
>
>>> We won't tolerate insulting comments though.
>> There is *no* insulting, please don't misunderstanding before
>> *sufficient* communication, OK? Originally, I thought Dmitry may
>> ignore(or overlook) what is the current status.
> Saying to someone maintaining and/or reviewing that code for years now
> that they are wrong and should go read the code is insulting.


Back to that time, I'm focus on kindly technique debating, this is a kind
of defensive reply for the patch. This is a kind of remind in case of ignores.
Probably a bit of negative, but please don't misunderstanding as insult anyway.

Dmitry, really thanks a lot for the instructs, I have learned a lot while
talking with you. I will back to try mentioned method.