[RFC PATCH 1/8] drm: writeback: Refactor drm_writeback_connector structure

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 12:44:29PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 02:57:00PM +0530, Suraj Kandpal wrote:
> > Some drivers cannot work with the current design where the connector
> > is embedded within the drm_writeback_connector such as intel and
> > some drivers that can get it working end up adding a lot of checks
> > all around the code to check if it's a writeback conenctor or not.
> > To solve this we move the drm_writeback_connector within the
> > drm_connector and remove the drm_connector base which was in
> > drm_writeback_connector. We do all other required
> > modifications that come with these changes along with addition
> > of new function which returns the drm_connector when
> > drm_writeback_connector is present.
> > All drivers will be expected to allocate the drm_connector.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Suraj Kandpal <suraj.kandpal at intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_writeback.c | 33 ++++++++++------
> >  include/drm/drm_connector.h     | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  include/drm/drm_writeback.h     | 68 ++++-----------------------------
> >  3 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 72 deletions(-)
> > 
> > @@ -2305,6 +2360,11 @@ struct drm_connector {
> >  	 * @cec: CEC-related data.
> >  	 */
> >  	struct drm_connector_cec cec;
> > +
> > +	/**
> > +	 * @writeback: Writeback related valriables.
> > +	 */
> > +	struct drm_writeback_connector writeback;
> 
> No, sorry, that's a bad idea. Most connectors have nothing to do with
> writeback, you shouldn't introduce writeback-specific fields here.
> drm_writeback_connector happens to be a drm_connector because of
> historical reasons (it was decided to reuse the connector API exposed to
> userspace instead of exposing a completely separate API in order to
> simplify the implementation), but that does not mean that every
> connector is related to writeback.
> 
> I don't know what issues the Intel driver(s) have with
> drm_writeback_connector, but you shouldn't make things worse for
> everybody due to a driver problem.

Suraj is trying to solve a problem that in Intel code every drm_connector
must be an intel_connector too. His previous attempt resulted in a loose
abstraction where drm_writeback_connector.base wasn't initialized in
some cases (which is a bad idea IMO).

I know the historical reasons for drm_writeback_connector, but I think
we can do better now.

So, I think, a proper approach would be:

struct drm_connector {
    // other fields

    union {
        struct drm_connector_hdmi hdmi; // we already have it
        struct drm_connector_wb wb;  // this is new
    };

    // rest of the fields.
};

I plan to add drm_connector_dp in a similar way, covering DP needs
(currently WIP).

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry