linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH RFC 3/3] drm/exynos: use pending_components for components tracking
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:42:02 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140418124202.GD24070@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53510C39.1020205@samsung.com>

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 01:27:53PM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> Hi Russel,
> 
> Thanks for comments.
> 
> On 04/17/2014 11:47 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 01:28:50PM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> >> +out:
> >> +	if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
> >> +		exynos_drm_dev_ready(&pdev->dev);
> > So we end up with everyone needing a "ready" call in each sub-driver
> > back into the main driver... this makes it impossible to write a
> > generic subcomponent driver which is not tied in any way to the
> > main driver.
> >
> > That is quite some restriction, and would prevent, for example, the
> > TDA998x driver being used both with Armada DRM, tilcdc and any other
> > driver.
> 
> As I see in armada driver drm is deferred in case tda998x is not yet
> available. The same solution can be still used with pending_devices
> approach - the main driver will not report its readiness until tda998x
> is present.
> 
> Anyway it still seems to be better than componentize every driver which can
> probably become a part of some superdevice.
> 
> If you want to get rid of deferred probe one can make global list of
> 'ready' devices with notifications systems for master devices.
> 
> Maybe it would be good to consider notification system for devices probe
> result,
> it will require that driver register all its interfaces in probe, ie its
> readiness cannot
> be reported later but will not require to add new framework. I hope just
> extending current
> notification system should be enough.

You aren't addressing my point.  If I were to convert tda998x to use
your infrastructure, then I would have to add in ifdefs to tie it into
armada DRM _and_ a different set of ifdefs to tie it into tilcdc.  Then
when someone else wanted to use it in their driver, they'd have to add
yet more ifdefs into it to tie it into their driver.

This does not scale.

So, please address my point: in your system, how can a single component
be shared between multiple different master drivers?

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: now at 9.7Mbps down 460kbps up... slowly
improving, and getting towards what was expected from it.

  reply	other threads:[~2014-04-18 12:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-04-17 11:28 [PATCH RFC 0/3] drm/exynos: refactoring drm initialization/cleanup code Andrzej Hajda
2014-04-17 11:28 ` [PATCH RFC 1/3] drm/exynos: refactor drm drivers registration code Andrzej Hajda
2014-04-17 11:28 ` [PATCH RFC 2/3] drivers/base: provide lightweight framework for componentized devices Andrzej Hajda
2014-04-17 11:28 ` [PATCH RFC 3/3] drm/exynos: use pending_components for components tracking Andrzej Hajda
2014-04-17 21:47   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-04-18 11:27     ` Andrzej Hajda
2014-04-18 12:42       ` Russell King - ARM Linux [this message]
2014-04-22  8:43         ` Andrzej Hajda
2014-04-17 22:04   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-04-18 12:02     ` Andrzej Hajda
2014-04-18 12:46       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-04-22 11:29         ` Andrzej Hajda
2014-04-22 11:51           ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-04-23 15:04             ` Andrzej Hajda
2014-04-23 16:43               ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-04-23 17:13                 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-04-25 14:36                   ` Andrzej Hajda
2014-04-26 15:30                     ` Russell King - ARM Linux

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20140418124202.GD24070@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk \
    --to=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).