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

Maxime Ripard
2024-05-15T14:58:43Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1462 bytes --]

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.

Maxime

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