[PATCH 0/2] drm/bridge: Add 'struct device *' field to the drm_bridge structure

[Sui Jingfeng]

Hi,


On 5/15/24 22:58, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 10:53:00PM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
>> On 5/15/24 22:30, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 12:53:33AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
>>>> On 2024/5/15 00:22, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 11:40:43PM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
>>>>>> Because a lot of implementations has already added it into their drived
>>>>>> class, promote it into drm_bridge core may benifits a lot. drm bridge is
>>>>>> a driver, it should know the underlying hardware entity.
>>>>> Is there some actual benefits, or is it theoretical at this point?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think, DRM bridge drivers could remove the 'struct device *dev'
>>>> member from their derived structure. Rely on the drm bridge core
>>>> when they need the 'struct device *' pointer.
>>>
>>> Sure, but why do we need to do so?
>>>
>>> The other thread you had with Jani points out that it turns out that
>>> things are more complicated than "every bridge driver has a struct
>>> device anyway", it creates inconsistency in the API (bridges would have
>>> a struct device, but not other entities), and it looks like there's no
>>> use for it anyway.
>>>
>>> None of these things are deal-breaker by themselves, but if there's only
>>> downsides and no upside, it's not clear to me why we should do it at all.
>>
>> It can reduce boilerplate.
> 
> You're still using a conditional here.


It's for safety reason, prevent NULL pointer dereference.
drm bridge can be seen as either a software entity or a device driver.

It's fine to pass NULL if specific KMS drivers intend to see
drm bridge as a pure software entity, and for internal use only.
Both use cases are valid.

> 
> Maxime

-- 
Best regards
Sui