On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I would mostly agree with you if we were discussing SoC-internal > components here. Mostly, because the ARM world is more complex and you > can see the same IP across completely different SoCs from different > vendors. > > However, the topic here is about external devices, outside the SoC, such > as different kind of bridges, like the PTN3460 eDP to LVDS bridge, which > are likely to be reused across different platforms. Similar thing is with > using different bridges on different boards using the same SoC platform. > I don't think having an abstraction here would be any overabstraction at > all. Anything less would be a huge "underabstraction" in fact. I think no one is arguing that we don't eventually need some better abstraction. But as long as it is one-bridge and one-user, if the patches otherwise have merit, add functionality that was missing before and don't regress, then lack of infrastructure to match up bridge and driver isn't something I will care about too much yet. Things are allowed to be in-progress. A missing abstraction for a 1:1 relationship is fine. Now as we start getting a few more bridge devices and users, then I'll start blocking patches until some sort of generic bridge loader is sorted out. BR, -R _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
