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. > > 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. > I don't see how this change makes the code quality any worse, it's a noop on boards without the bridge. I proposed a general solution in v2, to which Laurent said he was working on a patch. I didn't feel the need to do anything more general here since it would be more work to rip it out later. I am happy to pick up this work, however: - I don't want to step on Laurent's toes - It's probably more useful to have a general framework with 2 or more bridges, so I don't think it should be a blocker on the ptn stuff Sean > Best regards, > Tomasz > > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
