On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> enum {
> DRM_HW_BLOCK_PANEL,
> DRM_HW_BLOCK_BRIDGE,
> DRM_HW_BLOCK_ENHANCE,
> };
>
> struct drm_hw_block {
> unsigned int type;
> struct device *dev;
just fyi, drop the 'struct device' ptr.. that sort of thing shouldn't
be in the base struct.
(and it should subclass 'struct drm_mode_object base' too)
> struct drm_device *drm;
>
> /* Used commonly. */
> int (*disable)(struct drm_hw_block *block);
> int (*enable)(struct drm_hw_block *block);
>
> /* For parallel panels. */
> struct drm_connector *connector;
> int (*get_modes)(struct drm_hw_block *block);
so, other than this part, the rest is already in drm_bridge_funcs.
But seems like something that only makes sense at the end of the chain
(ie. connector/panel end of things).. to me it makes sense to instead
just keep panel as it's own thing.
> /* For LVDS bridge devices. */
> void (*mode_fixup)(struct drm_hw_block *block);
> void (*mode_set)(struct drm_hw_block *block);
> ....
>
> /* For Image Enhancement devices. */
> ....
>
> struct list_head list;
> };
>
> Of course, we could separate above callbacks to each structure like below,
yup callbacks should be split out (and normally in a 'const' data
structure if possible)
BR,
-R
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
