On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 05:28:13PM +0530, Ajay kumar wrote: >> Hi Thierry, >> >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Thierry Reding >> <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 02:13:54AM +0530, Ajay Kumar wrote: >> > [...] >> >> Also, remove the drm_connector implementation from ptn3460, >> >> since the same is implemented using panel_binder. >> > >> > I think that's a step backwards. In fact I think the panel-bridge binder >> > driver shouldn't be needed at all. At least not for now. We have a very >> > limited number of bridge drivers, so it shouldn't hurt at this stage to >> > implement the connector instantiation within each driver. Once we have >> > more bridge drivers, and therefore a better understanding of what they >> > need, we can always add something like the panel-binder (though I think >> > it should be library code, similar to the drm_encoder_helper_add() API, >> > rather than this kind of self-contained object). >> panel_binder was needed to wrap around panel as a bridge, and this was in turn >> needed because people wanted to represent a bridge+panel combo as a chain >> of bridges. >> So, if we choose to drop panel_binder, we choose to drop the idea of chaining >> the bridges, and end up calling drm_panel functions directly from >> individual bridges. >> And, the bridge will implement the connector functions as you suggested. >> I am okay with this, if Daniel/Rob don't have an issue with this. > > I think bridge chaining and panel handling are separate issues. That's > why I think we shouldn't mix them like this. From earlier discussion[0] > the conclusion was that the final element in the chain should implement > a connector (with the appropriate type). Often that last element would > be an encoder (when there are no bridges). Sometimes the last element > would be a bridge. It's logical for that same element to also implement > the panel integration since it's closely tied to the connector. > > Thierry > > [0]: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2014-May/059685.html Going with Thierry's opinion, if the bridge is allowed to do panel integration, there is no need for a bridge_chain. I mean a bridge_chain doesn't exist in my case at all. I have just one bridge which integrates a panel. Is it really necessary to keep next_bridge pointer and other helpers? Ajay _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
