On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:21:03AM +0000, james qian wang (Arm Technology China) wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 08:20:56AM +0000, Brian Starkey wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 03:07:59AM +0000, james qian wang (Arm Technology China) wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 04:22:07PM +0000, Brian Starkey wrote: > > > > > > > > If James is strongly against merging this, maybe we just swap > > > > wholesale to bridge? But for me, the pragmatic approach would be this > > > > stop-gap. > > > > > > > > > > This is a good idea, and I vote +ULONG_MAX :) > > > > > > and I also checked tda998x driver, it supports bridge. so swap the > > > wholesale to brige is perfect. :) > > > > > > > Well, as Mihail wrote, it's definitely not perfect. > > > > Today, if you rmmod tda998x with the DPU driver still loaded, > > everything will be unbound gracefully. > > > > If we swap to bridge, then rmmod'ing tda998x (or any other bridge > > driver the DPU is using) with the DPU driver still loaded will result > > in a crash. > > I haven't read the bridge code, but seems this is a bug of drm_bridge, > since if the bridge is still in using by others, the rmmod should fail > Correct, but there's no fix for that today. You can also take a look at the thread linked from Mihail's cover letter. > And personally opinion, if the bridge doesn't handle the dependence. > for us: > > - add such support to bridge That would certainly be helpful. I don't know if there's consensus on how to do that. > or > - just do the insmod/rmmod in correct order. > > > So, there really are proper benefits to sticking with the component > > code for tda998x, which is why I'd like to understand why you're so > > against this patch? > > > > This change handles two different connectors in komeda internally, compare > with one interface, it increases the complexity, more risk of bug and more > cost of maintainance. > Well, it's only about how to bind the drivers - two different methods of binding, not two different connectors. I would argue that carrying our out-of-tree patches to support both platforms is a larger maintenance burden. Honestly this looks like a win-win to me. We get the superior approach when its supported, and still get to support bridges which are more common. As/when improvements are made to the bridge code we can remove the component bits and not lose anything. > So my suggestion is keeping on one single interface in komeda, no > matter it is bridge or component, but I'd like it only one, but not > them both in komeda. If we can put the effort into fixing bridges then I guess that's the best approach for everyone :-) Might not be easy though! -Brian > > Thanks > James > > > Thanks, > > -Brian _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
