[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8d747088-3214-97af-4616-bf5d2602892a@axentia.se>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 09:51:46 +0200
From: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Archit Taneja <architt@...eaurora.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Martin Donnelly <martin.donnelly@...com>,
Martyn Welch <martyn.welch@...labora.co.uk>,
Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
Inki Dae <inki.dae@...sung.com>,
Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@...sung.com>,
Seung-Woo Kim <sw0312.kim@...sung.com>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
CK Hu <ck.hu@...iatek.com>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>,
Vincent Abriou <vincent.abriou@...com>,
Jyri Sarha <jsarha@...com>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/24] device link, bridge supplier <-> drm device
On 2018-04-27 09:37, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2018-04-27 09:11, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On 27.04.2018 00:31, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> It was noted by Russel King [1] that bridges (not using components)
>>> might disappear unexpectedly if the owner of the bridge was unbound.
>>> Jyri Sarha had previously noted the same thing with panels [2]. Jyri
>>> came up with using device links to resolve the panel issue, which
>>> was also my (independent) reaction to the note from Russel.
>>>
>>> This series builds up to the addition of that link in the last
>>> patch, but in my opinion the other 23 patches do have merit on their
>>> own.
>>>
>>> The last patch needs testing, while the others look trivial. That
>>> said, I might have missed some subtlety.
>>
>> of_node is used as an identifier of the bridge in the kernel. If you
>> replace it with device pointer there will be potential problem with
>> devices having two or more bridges, how do you differentiate bridges if
>> the owner is the same? If I remember correctly current bridge code does
>> not allow to have multiple bridges in one device, but that should be
>> quite easy to fix if necessary. After this change it will become more
>> difficult.
>
> I don't see how it will be more difficult?
>
>> Anyway I remember discussion that in DT world bridge should be
>> identified rather by of_graph port node, not by parent node as it is
>> now. If you want to translate this relation to device owner, you should
>> add also port number to have full identification of the bridge, ie pair
>> (owner, port_number) would be equivalent of port node.
>
> You even state the trivial solution here, just add the port/endpoint ID
> when/if it is needed. So, what is the significant difference?
Or, since this is apparently a rare requirement, you could make the owners
that do need it fix it themselves. E.g. by embedding the struct drm_bridge
in another struct that contains the needed ID, and use container_of to get
to that containing struct with the ID.
Cheers,
Peter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists