Hi,
On 2023/11/24 15:38, Maxime Ripard wrote:
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.
'emulate' -> 'enumerate'
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.
This series is not relevant to my driver, can we please *limit*
the discussion to this series?
Whether
you follow them or not is your decision.
I'm not saying that I will not follow, just to make sure what's solution is you want.
I need discussion to figure out.
We won't tolerate insulting comments though.
There is *no* insulting, please don't misunderstanding before *sufficient* communication, OK?
Originally, I thought Dmitry may ignore(or overlook) what is the current status.
Maxime
