[PATCH v2 1/4] drm/bridge: Add fwnode based helpers to get the next bridge

[Sui Jingfeng]

Hi,


On 2024/3/8 04:40, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> But really, there is nothing so hard about it:
>>> - Change of_node to fw_node, apply an automatic patch changing this in
>>> bridge drivers.
>>> - Make drm_of_bridge functions convert passed of_node and comp
>>>
>>> After this we can start cleaning up bridge drivers to use fw_node API
>>> natively as you did in your patches 2-4.
>> Yes, it's not so hard. But I'm a little busy due to other downstream developing
>> tasks. Sorry, very sorry!
>>
>> During the talk with you, I observed that you are very good at fwnode domain.
>> Are you willing to help the community to do something? For example, currently
>> the modern drm bridge framework is corrupted by legacy implement, is it possible
>> for us to migrate them to modern? Instead of rotting there? such as the lontium-lt9611uxc.c
>> which create a drm connector manually, not modernized yet and it's DT dependent.
>> So, there are a lot things to do.
> Actually, lontium-lt9611uxc.c does both of that 😉 It supports
> creating a connector and it as well supports attaching to a chain
> without creating a connector. Pretty nice, isn't it?


But why the drm_bridge_connector helpers and/or the drm_connector bridge can't suit you need?
Coding this way just add boilerplate into drm bridge subsystem, right?


The code path of "creating a connector" plus the code path of "not creating a connector"
forms a 'side-by-side' implementation imo.

Besides, I have repeated many times: the DT already speak everything.
Device drivers can completely know if there is a display connector OF device created and how many
display bridges in the whole chain. If there are connector device node in the DT, then it should
has a device driver bound to it(instead of create it manually) for a perfect implementation. As
you told me we should not *over play* the device-driver model, right?