Re: [PATCH 0/2] drm/bridge: Add 'struct device *' field to the drm_bridge structure

Maxime Ripard
2024-05-16T08:25:10Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2278 bytes --]

On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 11:19:58PM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 5/15/24 22:58, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 10:53:00PM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> > > On 5/15/24 22:30, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 12:53:33AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> > > > > On 2024/5/15 00:22, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 11:40:43PM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> > > > > > > Because a lot of implementations has already added it into their drived
> > > > > > > class, promote it into drm_bridge core may benifits a lot. drm bridge is
> > > > > > > a driver, it should know the underlying hardware entity.
> > > > > > Is there some actual benefits, or is it theoretical at this point?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think, DRM bridge drivers could remove the 'struct device *dev'
> > > > > member from their derived structure. Rely on the drm bridge core
> > > > > when they need the 'struct device *' pointer.
> > > >
> > > > Sure, but why do we need to do so?
> > > >
> > > > The other thread you had with Jani points out that it turns out that
> > > > things are more complicated than "every bridge driver has a struct
> > > > device anyway", it creates inconsistency in the API (bridges would have
> > > > a struct device, but not other entities), and it looks like there's no
> > > > use for it anyway.
> > > >
> > > > None of these things are deal-breaker by themselves, but if there's only
> > > > downsides and no upside, it's not clear to me why we should do it at all.
> > >
> > > It can reduce boilerplate.
> >
> > You're still using a conditional here.
>
> It's for safety reason, prevent NULL pointer dereference.
> drm bridge can be seen as either a software entity or a device driver.
>
> It's fine to pass NULL if specific KMS drivers intend to see
> drm bridge as a pure software entity, and for internal use only.
> Both use cases are valid.

Sorry, I don't follow you. We can't NULL dereference a pointer that
doesn't exist.

Please state why we should merge this series: what does it fix or
improve, aside from the potential gain of making bridges declare one
less pointer in their private structure.

Maxime

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 273 bytes --]