[PATCH v4 08/11] drm/bridge: Add a drm_bridge_state object

[Boris Brezillon]

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 11:12:55 +0200
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart at ideasonboard.com> wrote:

> Hi Boris,
> 
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 10:03:02AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 20:17:05 +0200 Laurent Pinchart wrote:  
> > > On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 03:15:12PM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:  
> > > > One of the last remaining objects to not have its atomic state.
> > > > 
> > > > This is being motivated by our attempt to support runtime bus-format
> > > > negotiation between elements of the bridge chain.
> > > > This patch just paves the road for such a feature by adding a new
> > > > drm_bridge_state object inheriting from drm_private_obj so we can
> > > > re-use some of the existing state initialization/tracking logic.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at collabora.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong at baylibre.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > Changes in v4:
> > > > * Fix the doc
> > > > * Kill default helpers (inlined)    
> > > 
> > > I liked the default helpers, inlining their content makes the code more
> > > difficult to follow in my opinion.  
> > 
> > I'll go back to this approach then. Should I keep the original helper
> > names even though they're not globally visible (and should probably
> > never be)?  
> 
> I agree they should probably never be visible, and I trust your
> judgement on naming. Please double-check the documentation though, to
> ensure that it matches the implementation.
> 

Is there any point keeping the documentation if they're not exposed?