[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250915-intrepid-quaint-bullfrog-bb68b8@penduick>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 13:28:46 +0200
From: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>,
Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>, Robert Foss <rfoss@...nel.org>, Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>,
Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>, Jyri Sarha <jyri.sarha@....fi>,
Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>, Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@...com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/29] drm/bridge: Implement atomic_print_state
On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 10:22:12PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > + struct drm_bridge *bridge = drm_priv_to_bridge(s->obj);
> > > +
> > > + drm_printf(p, "bridge: %s", drm_get_connector_type_name(bridge->type));
>
> It would be nice to identify the bridge more precisely, but bridges have
> no object ID :-/ The raw pointer may not be very useful. I wonder if we
> should give an object ID to drm_private_obj instances, even if we don't
> expose them to userspace. That's not a topic for this series of course.
I agree, and would have liked to have something a bit more descriptive
indeed. But bridges have neither a name or an ID, so I couldn't come up
with anything better :/
> Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com>
Thanks!
Maxime
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (274 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists