From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 18:59:48 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v2 0/2] Improve drm_of_component_probe() and move rockchip to use it In-Reply-To: <20151223182033.a52356408b9a81e9497464e7@free.fr> References: <1448029325-14602-1-git-send-email-Liviu.Dudau@arm.com> <20151222173800.GU960@e106497-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20151223103906.2aae53595345240d57d57b41@free.fr> <20151223100534.GW960@e106497-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20151223182033.a52356408b9a81e9497464e7@free.fr> Message-ID: <20151223185948.GT8644@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 06:20:33PM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: > On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:05:34 +0000 > Liviu Dudau wrote: > > > > What was the reason to keep the "ports" node instead of the device? > > > > The function is an extract of common code sprinkled through a few DRM drivers, > > they all used port rather than port->parent. > > Sorry for I could find such drivers. May you give me any pointer? imx-drm probably. > > Have a look at my v2 where I've introduced two compare functions and also > > modified the Rockchip compare_port() to use port->parent in the comparison. I > > guess that should solve your problem. > > Keeping the port instead of the parent asks for more code, but, > especially, it also asks for changes in the component drivers because, > at bind time, in 'data', they get a port instead of the device. Sorry, this doesn't make sense. You have far too many sub-clauses which mean nothing at all. Please rephrase. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.