Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 9 Mar 2024 19:25:36 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] drm/bridge: Add fwnode based helpers to get the next bridge | From | Sui Jingfeng <> |
| |
Hi,
On 2024/3/9 18:39, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 at 11:33, Sui Jingfeng <sui.jingfeng@linux.dev> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> On 2024/3/8 04:40, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>> But really, there is nothing so hard about it: >>>>> - Change of_node to fw_node, apply an automatic patch changing this in >>>>> bridge drivers. >>>>> - Make drm_of_bridge functions convert passed of_node and comp >>>>> >>>>> After this we can start cleaning up bridge drivers to use fw_node API >>>>> natively as you did in your patches 2-4. >>>> Yes, it's not so hard. But I'm a little busy due to other downstream developing >>>> tasks. Sorry, very sorry! >>>> >>>> During the talk with you, I observed that you are very good at fwnode domain. >>>> Are you willing to help the community to do something? For example, currently >>>> the modern drm bridge framework is corrupted by legacy implement, is it possible >>>> for us to migrate them to modern? Instead of rotting there? such as the lontium-lt9611uxc.c >>>> which create a drm connector manually, not modernized yet and it's DT dependent. >>>> So, there are a lot things to do. >>> Actually, lontium-lt9611uxc.c does both of that 😉 It supports >>> creating a connector and it as well supports attaching to a chain >>> without creating a connector. Pretty nice, isn't it? >> >> But why the drm_bridge_connector helpers and/or the drm_connector bridge can't suit you need? >> Coding this way just add boilerplate into drm bridge subsystem, right? > Because there are platforms, like iMX LCDIF which can use the > lt9611uxc bridge, but do not make use of the drm_bridge_connector yet. >
Well, I have just grepped across the drm-tip kernel branch, but I don't find iMX LCDIF you mentioned. See the search results pasted at bellow.
$ find . -name "*.dts" -type f | xargs grep "lontium,lt9611uxc" /arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450-hdk.dts: compatible = "lontium,lt9611uxc"; /arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qrb5165-rb5.dts: compatible = "lontium,lt9611uxc"; /arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qrb2210-rb1.dts: compatible = "lontium,lt9611uxc"; /arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qrb4210-rb2.dts: compatible = "lontium,lt9611uxc"; /arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8350-hdk.dts: compatible = "lontium,lt9611uxc";
So I can't see the drm driver that you refer to, can you pointed it out for study purpose? Even it's exist, however, back to that time, why don't you posting a patch to switch it to the canonical design as you mentioned and give the community a clean design? And those are just *reasons*, from the viewpoint of the *result*. The merged patch results in a 'side-by-side' implement and boilerplate added into drm bridges subsystem, the results doesn't change no matter what the reason is, right?
| |