Hello Jani,
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 20:21:50 +0200
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2025, Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hello Jani,
> >
> > On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 18:36:41 +0200
> > Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 25 Feb 2025, Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > In preparation to expose more info about bridges in debugfs, which will
> >> > require more insight into drm_bridge data structures, move the bridges_show
> >> > code to drm_bridge.c.
> >> >
> >> > Suggested-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> I hate myself for doing this on a patch that's at v7... but here goes.
> >
> > Please don't! :-) This patch is new in v7, and a different (and
> > definitely worse) approach was present in v6, but there was nothing
> > before.
> >
> >> Perhaps consider moving the bridges debugfs creation and fops to
> >> drm_bridge.c instead of just adding
> >> drm_bridge_debugfs_show_encoder_bridges().
> >>
> >> For example, add drm_bridge_debugfs_add(struct drm_encoder *encoder),
> >> which then contains the debugfs_create_file() call.
> >
> > I think it should go in drm_encoder.c, not drm_bridge.c, right? Here we
> > are showing the bridges attached to an encoder, so the entry point is
> > each encoder.
>
> I'm still thinking drm_bridge.c, because it's about bridges and their
> details. The encoder shouldn't care about bridge implementation details.
Ah, I think I now get what you mean.
Current code is:
drm_encoder_register_all() [drm_encoder.c]
-> drm_debugfs_encoder_add [drm_debugfs.c]
-> debugfs_create_file("bridges"... &bridges_fops) [drm_debugfs.c]
[bridges_fops is in drm_debugfs.c]
Moving the last 2 lines to drm_bridge.c and into a new function we'd
have:
drm_encoder_register_all() [drm_encoder.c]
-> drm_debugfs_encoder_add [*] [drm_debugfs.c]
-> drm_bridge_debugfs_add_encoder_bridges_file (NEW) [drm_bridge.c]
-> debugfs_create_file("bridges"... &bridges_fops) [drm_bridge.c]
[bridges_fops is in drm_bridge.c]
Potentially [*] could be moved to drm_encoder.c, but that is not bridge
related and can be done as a future step.
Is this what you had in mind?
> > On the other hand in patch 2 we should move the
> > drm_debugfs_global_add() code to drm_bridge.c, as it's showing bridges
> > ina encoder-independent way.
>
> Agreed on that.
>
> > And finally drm_bridge should export the common
> > drm_bridge_debugfs_show_bridge() function to drm_encoder.c.
>
> Disagree. That will still require the EXPORT and #ifdefs around
> CONFIG_DEBUG_FS.
With the above-sketched idea I agree we wouldn't need to export
drm_bridge_debugfs_show_bridge().
Luca
--
Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
