On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:20:31PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Sean Paul <seanpaul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> @@ -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, FWIW. However,
> > seems reasonable to keep the device_node instead.
>
> Hm, indeed. Tbh I vote to rename drm_panel->drm to ->dev and like with
> drm_crtc drop the struct device and go directly to a struct
> device_node. Since we don't really need the sturct device, the only
> thing we care about is the of_node. For added bonus wrap an #ifdef
> CONFIG_OF around all the various struct device_node in drm_foo.h.
> Should be all fairly simple to pull off with cocci.
>
> Thierry?
The struct device * is in DRM panel because there's nothing device tree
specific about the concept. Having a struct device_node * instead would
indicate that it can only be used with a device tree, whereas the
framework doesn't care the tiniest bit what type of device we have.
While the trend clearly is to use more device tree, I don't think we
should make it impossible for anybody else to use these frameworks.
There are other advantages to keeping a struct device *, like having
access to the proper device and its name. Also you get access to the
device_node * via dev->of_node anyway. I don't see any advantage in
switching to just a struct device_node *, only disadvantages.
Thierry
Attachment:
pgp84Ur9enk6n.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
