On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 12:53:33AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote: > Hi, > > On 2024/5/15 00:22, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 11:40:43PM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote: > > > Because a lot of implementations has already added it into their drived > > > class, promote it into drm_bridge core may benifits a lot. drm bridge is > > > a driver, it should know the underlying hardware entity. > > Is there some actual benefits, or is it theoretical at this point? > > > I think, DRM bridge drivers could remove the 'struct device *dev' > member from their derived structure. Rely on the drm bridge core > when they need the 'struct device *' pointer. Sure, but why do we need to do so? The other thread you had with Jani points out that it turns out that things are more complicated than "every bridge driver has a struct device anyway", it creates inconsistency in the API (bridges would have a struct device, but not other entities), and it looks like there's no use for it anyway. None of these things are deal-breaker by themselves, but if there's only downsides and no upside, it's not clear to me why we should do it at all. Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
