linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] drm/bridge: Add 'struct device *' field to the drm

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 22:53:00 +0800
From: Sui Jingfeng <sui.jingfeng@...ux.dev>
To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
Cc: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
 Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
 dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] drm/bridge: Add 'struct device *' field to the
 drm_bridge structure

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