On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 03:29:12PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 02:07:18PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 06:35:15PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 03:43:51PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > Other entities (drm_connector.crtc, drm_encoder.crtc, etc.) have > > > > pointer to other currently bound entities. They are all considered > > > > relevant only for non-atomic drivers, and generally perceived as > > > > deprecated in favour of the equivalent pointers in the atomic states. > > > > > > I think there is a significant difference between mentioned fields and > > > drm_bridge.encoder: the former fields are variable and can change. The > > > latter one is static and set at the bridge attachment time. Nevertheless > > > I think it is a good idea to deprecate it. > > > > I'm sorry, it's not clear to me here what you want here either. Do you > > want me to change anything to that patch? > > Well... I was thinking if we should expand the commit message. Most > likely it's fine though. In the end, I've r-b'ed the patch. I think this one is wrong, since the bridge->encoder link is static. This is unlike the connector->encoder->crtc chain, which isn't, and where you really want to go through the atomic states or you get funny stuff. I don't think we have bridge chains with multiple connectors though, so this is fairly academic and so maybe still a good idea to make this all more flexible? Unless I've missed the memo and atomic bridges have flexible routing, and in that case yes this shouldn't be used. Mildly confused ... -Sima -- Simona Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
