From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-175.mta1.migadu.com (out-175.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A86E957CA1 for ; Wed, 15 May 2024 14:53:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.175 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715784793; cv=none; b=InSDZqh6ItK9dTugtALjlIFzOh6iWkG5hM5iwTVxUEmYB07XG/CqCimLq2+fklHvymFX8X0Az7Vin1ao7NNWaypnxMQr7i8kx6hQnNCa+SgFP1mnw/5kzGW/oB/YcY1cuyab4CrvNrUaZH9UO2A2S8kgZ2k5jHHBTKT4MPMxXtQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715784793; c=relaxed/simple; bh=rRYOEWpUPnx9yP+R+8XJ107O/AntMZiGuDGOA1YFrec=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=P7grQuLaq6oINyOqPBb6knn/aQylkdTYejun3GgVrPrfEysIEBo9bSz1IImsUj+hkn4nVemCcICDJ9tlj94Cwx897azmZqUx/OjhcdQYeQOjJCj+0DndNhTIzq7AAsN5RNePAy/0nZJ7fof00DZ9orl+DByC4uZ4K4u2MvvaTa0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=qteS1gDj; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.175 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="qteS1gDj" Message-ID: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1715784788; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ji80YrVOn0CdzRUEfTOoKRvKIhm1LRO8qrYRQvN0VUA=; b=qteS1gDjKTwRJ40kT2ZSurGfr/ETwkhm8guWIa6oZqwY7EDyJEr6UzG8W8ZGp3Qumefycs UaCABkvUzDSq3qQ1DQY1eg6yYRJAsrg7GtTEK3HhglmI19LgDsYeiytemH6wwFB/uDIhVu 5/mw5uxLSUMwe+JNYEdxDiVR5NwoTxk= Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 22:53:00 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] drm/bridge: Add 'struct device *' field to the drm_bridge structure To: Maxime Ripard Cc: Neil Armstrong , Dmitry Baryshkov , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20240514154045.309925-1-sui.jingfeng@linux.dev> <20240514-scarlet-corgi-of-efficiency-faf2bb@penduick> <20240515-fair-satisfied-myna-480dea@penduick> Content-Language: en-US, en-AU X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Sui Jingfeng In-Reply-To: <20240515-fair-satisfied-myna-480dea@penduick> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT Hi, On 5/15/24 22:30, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 12:53:33AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote: >> Hi, >> >> 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. > Maxime -- Best regards Sui