On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Ajay kumar <ajaynumb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Daniel and Sean, >> >> Thanks for the comments! >> >> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> So don't ask why but I accidentally ended up in a branch looking at this >>>> patch and didn't like it. So very quick&grumpy review. >>>> >>>> First, please make the patch subject more descriptive: I'd expect a helper >>>> function scaffolding like the various crtc/probe/dp ... helpers we already >>>> have. You instead add code to untangle the probe ordering. Please say so. >> Sure. I will reword it properly. >> >>>> More comments below. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 07:59:37PM +0530, Ajay Kumar wrote: >>>>> A set of helper functions are defined in this patch to make >>>>> bridge driver probe independent of the drm flow. >>>>> >>>>> The bridge devices register themselves on a lookup table >>>>> when they get probed by calling "drm_bridge_add". >>>>> >>>>> The parent encoder driver waits till the bridge is available >>>>> in the lookup table(by calling "of_drm_find_bridge") and then >>>>> continues with its initialization. >>>>> >>>>> The encoder driver should also call "drm_bridge_attach" to pass >>>>> on the drm_device, encoder pointers to the bridge object. >>>>> >>>>> drm_bridge_attach inturn calls drm_bridge_init to register itself >>>>> with the drm core. Later, it calls "bridge->funcs->attach" so that >>>>> bridge can continue with other initializations. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Ajay Kumar <ajaykumar.rs@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>>> @@ -660,8 +662,11 @@ struct drm_bridge_funcs { >>>>> * @driver_private: pointer to the bridge driver's internal context >>>>> */ >>>>> struct drm_bridge { >>>>> - struct drm_device *dev; >>>>> + struct device *dev; >>>> >>>> Please don't rename the ->dev pointer into drm. Because _all_ the other >>>> drm structures still call it ->dev. Also, can't we use struct device_node >>>> here like we do in the of helpers Russell added? See 7e435aad38083 >>>> >>> >>> I think this is modeled after the naming in drm_panel, >> Right, The entire rework is based on how drm_panel framework is structured. >> >>> FWIW. However, >>> seems reasonable to keep the device_node instead. >> Yes, its visible that just device_node would be sufficient. >> This will save us from renaming drm_device as well. >> >>>>> + struct drm_device *drm; >>>>> + struct drm_encoder *encoder; >>>> >>>> This breaks bridge->bridge chaining (if we ever get there). It seems >>>> pretty much unused anyway except for an EBUSY check. Can't you use >>>> bridge->dev for that? >>>> >>> >>> Yeah, I'd prefer to pass drm_device directly into drm_bridge_attach >>> and leave it up to the caller to establish the proper chain. >> Ok. I will use drm_device pointer directly instead of passing encoder pointer. > > Hm, if you do this can you pls also update drm_panel accordingly? It > shouldn't be a lot of fuzz and would make things around drm+dt more > consistent. Are you talking about using struct device_node instead of struct device? I guess you have misplaced the comment under the wrong section! >> >>>>> struct list_head head; >>>>> + struct list_head list; >>>> >>>> These lists need better names. I know that the "head" is really awful, >>>> especially since it's actually not the head of the list but just an >>>> element. >>> >>> I think we can just rip bridge_list out of mode_config if we're going >>> to keep track of bridges elsewhere. So we can nuke "head" and keep >>> "list". This also means that bridge->destroy() goes away, but that's >>> probably Ok if everything converts to the standalone driver model >>> where we have driver->remove() >>> >>> Sean >> Great! Thierry actually mentioned about this once, and we have the >> confirmation now. >> >>>>> >>>>> struct drm_mode_object base; >>>> >>>> >>>> Aside: I've noticed all this trying to update the kerneldoc for struct >>>> drm_bridge, which just showed that this patch makes inconsistent changes. >>>> Trying to write kerneldoc is a really great way to come up with better >>>> interfaces imo. >>>> >>>> Cheers, Daniel >> I din't get this actually. You want me to create Doc../drm_bridge.txt >> or something similar? > > If you want to document drm_bridge then I recomment to sprinkle proper > kerneldoc over drm_bridge.c and pull it all into the drm DocBook > template. That way all the drm documentation is in one place. I've > done that for drm_crtc.h in an unrelated patch series (but based upon > a branch with your patch here included) and there's struct drm_bridge* > in there. Hence why I've noticed. Can you send a link for that? And, is there any problem if the doc comes later? Ajay _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel