Re: [PATCH v3 06/13] drm: bridge: Add LVDS encoder driver

[Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>]

Hi Daniel,

On Wednesday 04 Jan 2017 17:13:23 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 Jan 2017 15:58:25 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 04:33:57PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 04 Jan 2017 14:51:48 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>> Hm, something like drm_bridge_panel_bridge_init(dev, panel) should be
> >>> enough, or not? My idea is to use this for the case where the only
> >>> thing in dt is the panel, with no real bridge chip. And I think we
> >>> don't need anything beyond that one _init function, plus maybe some
> >>> additional paramaters ...
> >> 
> >> There should be no bridge then. If you want the DRM core to manage
> >> panels automatically, then we should create specific helpers for that,
> >> not abuse the bridge infrastructure. Bridges should be instantiated from
> >> a hardware device and bound to drivers as usual.
> > 
> > I guess that's the part where I disagree: Just because there's physically
> > no bridge doesn't mean we shouldn't just treat it as one in the software
> > abstraction. If it looks and acts like a bridge (even an empty one), then
> > imo it can be a bridge.
> > 
> > If you insist on panels being panels, then I guess we need some other kind
> > of glue to bind them into arbitrary bridge chains. But given that the
> > callbacks match very closely, I don't see the point.
> > 
> > In an idea world a panel would probably derive from a drm_bridge, but
> > we're not in that universe unfortunately ;-)
> 
> Or both would derive from another object, but I agree that's how it should
> work. That's what I want to achieve, one step at a time. Creating dummy
> bridges isn't a step in that direction in my opinion, so I'd rather not do
> that, but work towards the right abstraction.

Do you object getting this patch merged as-is as a first step in the right 
direction ? :-)

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart