On Friday, 18 October 2019 07:38:59 BST james qian wang (Arm Technology China) wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:48:12AM +0000, Brian Starkey wrote: > > 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. > > > > My consideration is: if we support both link methods, we may suffering > > - 1. bridge reference cnt problem > - 2. maintance two link methods. > > the 1) seems unavoidable, so swap all to bridage at least can avoid > the pain of 2). that's why I thought your idea "swap all to bridage" > is good. > > Thanks > James. > Just to make sure my understanding is clear: If I respin the patch to only use the drm_bridge i/f, you'd be happier with it and we can get it merged? > > 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 > -- Mihail _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
