On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 03:19:36PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Ajay kumar <ajaynumb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > >> 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! > > Yeah, that should have been one up ;-) Like I said earlier, I don't think dropping struct device * in favour of struct device_node * is a good idea. > >> 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? > > Since quite a while we've asked for the kerneldoc polish as part of > each drm core patch series. It's just that drm_bridge/panel kinda have > flown under the radar of the people usually asking for docs ;-) FWIW, there's some kerneldoc in include/drm/drm_panel.h but I guess I could write up something more complete and integrate it into DocBook. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpcl15wPHW7x.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
