On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Tomasz Figa <t.figa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Friday 29 of November 2013 09:13:19 Rob Clark wrote: >> 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. > > This is not just one-bridge, one-user. This is about users of Exynos DRM > we already have in-tree, such as Trats, Trats2 or Arndale, that the DRM > bridge infrastructure could be used on and finally allowing to have > display support on them. Of course you could merge this as is and > then let someone else completely rewrite it (most likely in the same > release cycle), but since it's not really much more work, I don't > think there is any sense. well, I'm not quite sure where I there is a pending complete re-write.. it looks like the hard ptn3460 dependency is just a few lines in one function. Otherwise I'd agree with you. (and even the patch that touches the code calling ptn3460_init() is just moving it around from what I see) > Moreover, let's stick to modern kernel driver coding standards. I don't > think that "I want this patchset merged so badly" is really a good excuse > to get around it. After all, there would be no GKH's staging tree, if > nobody cared about quality in mainline. And with my quality hat on, I could say that I'm not too fond of unused (or 1:1 client to user) abstractions. That is something that should be introduced as we merge our 2nd or 3rd bridge. BR, -R > Best regards, > Tomasz > _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
