On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 11:12:55 +0200 Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Boris, > > On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 10:03:02AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 20:17:05 +0200 Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 03:15:12PM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > > One of the last remaining objects to not have its atomic state. > > > > > > > > This is being motivated by our attempt to support runtime bus-format > > > > negotiation between elements of the bridge chain. > > > > This patch just paves the road for such a feature by adding a new > > > > drm_bridge_state object inheriting from drm_private_obj so we can > > > > re-use some of the existing state initialization/tracking logic. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Reviewed-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > Changes in v4: > > > > * Fix the doc > > > > * Kill default helpers (inlined) > > > > > > I liked the default helpers, inlining their content makes the code more > > > difficult to follow in my opinion. > > > > I'll go back to this approach then. Should I keep the original helper > > names even though they're not globally visible (and should probably > > never be)? > > I agree they should probably never be visible, and I trust your > judgement on naming. Please double-check the documentation though, to > ensure that it matches the implementation. > Is there any point keeping the documentation if they're not exposed?
