[PATCH V7 03/12] drm/bridge: Add helper functions for drm_bridge
Andrzej Hajda
a.hajda at samsung.com
Wed Oct 29 02:09:04 PDT 2014
On 10/29/2014 08:58 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 04:05:34PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 08:16:44PM +0530, Ajay kumar wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Thierry Reding
>>> <thierry.reding at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 03:19:36PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Ajay kumar <ajaynumb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> Hm, if you do this can you pls also update drm_panel accordingly? It
>>>>>>> shouldn't be a lot of fuzz and would make things around drm+dt more
>>>>>>> consistent.
>>>>>> Are you talking about using struct device_node instead of struct device?
>>>>>> I guess you have misplaced the comment under the wrong section!
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, that should have been one up ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Like I said earlier, I don't think dropping struct device * in favour of
>>>> struct device_node * is a good idea.
>>> I am not sure about drm_panel.
>>> But, I am not really doing anything with the struct device pointer in
>>> case of bridge.
>>> So, just wondering if it is really needed?
>>
>> I think it's useful to have it just to send the right message. DRM panel
>> and DRM bridge aren't specific to device tree. They are completely
>> generic and can work with any type of device, whether it was
>> instantiated from the device tree or some other infrastructure. Dropping
>> struct device * will make it effectively useless on anything but DT. I
>> don't think we should strive for that, even if only DT-enabled platforms
>> currently use them.
>
> See my other reply, but I now think we should put neither into drm
> structures. This "find me the driver structures for this device" problem
> looks really generic, and it has nothing to do with the drm structures and
> concepts like bridges/panels at all. It shouldn't be in there at all.
>
> Adding it looks very much like reintroducing the drm midlayer that we just
> finally made obsolete, just not at the top-level (struct drm_device) but
> at a bunch of leaf nodes. I expect all the same issues though. And I'm
> definitely not looking to de-midlayer more stuff that we're just adding.
>
> Imo this should be solved as a separate helper thing, maybe in the driver
> core akin to the component helpers from Russell.
> -Daniel
>
As I understand you want something generic to look for panels, bridges,
whatever and, like components, it should allow to safe hot plug/unplug.
I have proposed such thing few months ago [1]. Have you looked at it?
[1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/30/345
Regards
Andrzej
More information about the dri-devel
mailing list