On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 08:16:44PM +0530, Ajay kumar wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Thierry Reding > <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > I am not sure about drm_panel. > But, I am not really doing anything with the struct device pointer in > case of bridge. > So, just wondering if it is really needed? I think it's useful to have it just to send the right message. DRM panel and DRM bridge aren't specific to device tree. They are completely generic and can work with any type of device, whether it was instantiated from the device tree or some other infrastructure. Dropping struct device * will make it effectively useless on anything but DT. I don't think we should strive for that, even if only DT-enabled platforms currently use them. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpRsZnbhrkXX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
