On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 01:52:26AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote: > On 2023/11/23 16:08, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > I'm agree with the idea that drm bridges drivers involved toward to a direction > > > that support more complex design, but I think we should also leave a way for the > > > most frequent use case. Make it straight-forward as a canonical design. > > Not having anything connector-related in the drm_bridge driver is a > > canonical design. > > What you said is just for the more complex uses case. I can't agree, sorry. > > By choosing the word "canonical design", I means that the most frequently used > cases in practice are the canonical design, 95+% motherboards I have seen has > only one *onboard* display bridges chip. For my driver, I abstract the internal > (inside of the chip) encoder as drm_encoder and abstract the external TX chip as > drm_bridge, this design still works very well. > > > Originally, I means that this is a concept of the hardware design. > You are wrong even through in the software design context, the > transparent simple drm bridge drivers(simple-bridge.c) also *allow* > to create drm connector manually. I don't think I need to emulate > more example, please read the code by youself. Ok. That's it. We've been patient long enough. You have been given a review and a list of things to fix for your driver to be merged. Whether you follow them or not is your decision. We won't tolerate insulting comments though. Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
