On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:43:47AM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > On 09/23/2014 10:35 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: [...] > > But I agree that it would be nice to unify bridges and encoders more. It > > should be possible to make encoder always a bridge (or perhaps even > > replace encoders with bridges altogether). Then once you're out of the > > DRM device everything would be a bridge until you get to a panel. > > I agree that some sort of unification of bridges, (slave) encoders is a good > thing, this way we stay only with bridges and panels as receivers. > But we will still have to deal with the code like: > if (on the other end of the link is panel) > do panel framework specific things > else > do bridge framework specific things > > The code in both branches usually does similar things but due to framework > differences it is difficult to merge. That's because they are inherently different entities. You can perform operations on a panel that don't make sense for a bridge and vice-versa. > Ideally it would be best to get rid of such constructs. For example by > trying to > make frameworks per interface type exposed by device (eg. video_sink) and > not by device type (drm_bridge, drm_panel). But then you loose all information about the real type of device. Or you have to create a common base class. And then you're still back to dealing with the two specific cases in many places, so the gain seems rather minimal. Thierry
Attachment:
pgprpeI4MIuzL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
