On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 16:27:10 +0100 Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06.01.2020 11:29, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > Hi Boris, > > > > Thank you for the patch. > > > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 03:41:22PM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote: > >> Stop iterating on the bridge chain when we reach the bridge element. > >> That's what other helpers do and should allow bridge implementations > >> to execute a pre_enable operation on a sub-chain. > > The code looks fine to me, but I think you should update the > > documentation to explain this. It currently states: > > > > * Calls &drm_bridge_funcs.pre_enable op for all the bridges in the encoder > > * chain, starting from the last bridge to the first. These are called > > * before calling the encoder's commit op. > > * > > * Note: the bridge passed should be the one closest to the encoder > > > > I suggest stating instead that the operation is called from the last > > bridge to the bridge passed as the argument. The note should then either > > be removed, or updated to state that bridge is usually the bridge > > closest to the encoder, but can be any other bridge if the caller only > > wants to execute the operation on a subset of the chain. It's also > > probably worth it updating the other functions accordingly. > > > Apparently drm_(atomic_)bridge_chain_* helpers are always called on the > 1st bridge so you can try to remove bridge argument, if it is true. You mean passing an encoder instead of a bridge? I think that's what I initially did and was told we might want to execute operations on a sub-chain at some point. > > Moreover after patches 2 and 3 drm_bridge_chain_* helpers have no users. Well, the core is still using it, but there's no external users, you're right. Do you want me to stop exporting those helpers? _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
