[RFC PATCH v2 1/4] drm: Introduce generic probe function for component based masters.

[linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:32:55PM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:26:38PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:02:58PM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 01:25:37PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > Please don't move this into here, it's completely inappropriate.  Just
> > > > because something makes use of this does not mean they only support
> > > > 32-bit DMA.  Besides, this has nothing to do with whether or not it's
> > > > OF-based or not.
> > > 
> > > Understood. My thinking process was that component-based drivers are all
> > > OF-enabled (how else do you make use of the framework?) and 32-bit DMA is
> > > present in 2 out of 3 drivers that are converted, so it looks to be common
> > > enough that adding it to armada would not hurt. It was all done in the name of
> > > collecting common code in a single function.
> > 
> > Which is an utterly crap reason.
> > 
> > It's also not appropriate.  I'm really not sure why you think that moving
> > this here would in any way be appropriate - from my point of view, the
> > mere proposal is utterly insane.
> 
> The proposal is to collect similar code present in DRM drivers that act as
> component masters in one place in order to reduce code duplication. I want to
> add another DRM driver that will make use of the same code and did not see
> any reason to copy paste one of the slightly similar versions that are now
> peppered in the drivers/drm drivers.

I know why people want to set the DMA mask on the "software" component,
and that's drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_cma_helper.c, which wants to use
drm->dev as the struct device to allocate memory against.  That's not
really appropriate, and probably ought to get fixed.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.