[PATCH 5/6] drm/rcar_du: changes to rcar-du driver resulting from drm_writeback_connector structure changes

[Kandpal, Suraj]

Hi, 
> > Hi,
> > > > Hi Abhinav,
> > > > > Hi Laurent
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok sure, I can take this up but I need to understand the
> > > > > proposal a little bit more before proceeding on this. So we will
> > > > > discuss this in another email where we specifically talk about the
> connector changes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, I am willing to take this up once the encoder part is done
> > > > > and merged so that atleast we keep moving on that as MSM WB
> > > > > implementation can proceed with that first.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Jani and Suraj
> > > > >
> > > > > Any concerns with splitting up the series into encoder and
> > > > > connector OR re- arranging them?
> > > > >
> > > > > Let me know if you can do this OR I can also split this up
> > > > > keeping Suraj's name in the Co-developed by tag.
> > > > I was actually thinking of floating a new patch series with both
> > > > encoder and connector pointer changes but with a change in
> > > > initialization functions wherein we allocate a connector and
> > > > encoder incase the driver doesn’t have its own this should
> > > > minimize the effect on other drivers already using current drm
> > > > writeback framework and also
> > > allow i915 to create its own connector.
> > >
> > > I thought that Laurent was quite strict about the connector. So I'd
> > > suggest targeting drm_writeback_connector with an optionally created
> > > encoder and the builtin connector
> > In that case even if we target that i915 will not be able to move
> > forward with its implementation of writeback as builtin connector does
> > not work for us right now as explained earlier, optionally creating
> > encoder and connector will help everyone move forward and once done
> we
> > can actually sit and work on how to side step this issue using
> > Laurent's suggestion
> 
> This is up to Laurent & other DRM maintainers to decide whether this
> approach would be accepted or not.
> So far unfortunately I have mostly seen the pushback and a strong
> suggestion to stop treating each drm_connector as i915_connector.
> I haven't checked the exact details, but IMO adding a branch if the
> connector's type is DRM_CONNECTOR_VIRTUAL should be doable.
Bringing in the change where we don’t treat each drm_connector as
an intel_connector or even adding a branch which checks if
drm_connector is DRM_CONNECTOR_VIRTUAL and conditionally cast it
to intel_connector is quite a lot of work for i915.
That's why I was suggesting if for now we could move forward with optionally
creating both encoder and connector minimizing affects on other drivers as
well as allowing us to move forward.
What do you think, Launrent?

> 
> > >
> > > > We can work on Laurent's suggestion but that would first require
> > > > the initial RFC patches and then a rework from both of our drivers
> > > > side to see if they gel well with our current code which will take
> > > > a considerable amount of time. We can for now however float the
> > > > patch series up which minimally affects the current drivers and
> > > > also allows
> > > > i915 and msm to move forward with its writeback implementation off
> > > > course with a proper documentation stating new drivers shouldn't
> > > > try to
> > > make their own connectors and encoders and that drm_writeback will
> > > do that for them.
> > > > Once that's done and merged we can work with Laurent on his
> > > > proposal to improve the drm writeback framework so that this issue
> > > > can be side
> > > stepped entirely in future.
> > > > For now I would like to keep the encoder and connector pointer
> > > > changes
> > > together.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> With best wishes
> Dmitry

Best Regards,
Suraj Kandpal