On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:05:34 +0000 Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > What was the reason to keep the "ports" node instead of the device? > > The function is an extract of common code sprinkled through a few DRM drivers, > they all used port rather than port->parent. Sorry for I could find such drivers. May you give me any pointer? > Have a look at my v2 where I've introduced two compare functions and also > modified the Rockchip compare_port() to use port->parent in the comparison. I > guess that should solve your problem. Keeping the port instead of the parent asks for more code, but, especially, it also asks for changes in the component drivers because, at bind time, in 'data', they get a port instead of the device. You might say that this could be interesting for components with many different masters (video and audio), but this could be solved adding intermediate device nodes in the DT (ports). -- Ken ar c'hentañ | ** Breizh ha Linux atav! ** Jef | http://moinejf.free.fr/ _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
