Hi Daniel,
On Tuesday 29 Nov 2016 10:54:09 Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 11:04:36AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > The LVDS encoder driver is a DRM bridge driver that supports the
> > parallel to LVDS encoders that don't require any configuration. The
> > driver thus doesn't interact with the device, but creates an LVDS
> > connector for the panel and exposes its size and timing based on
> > information retrieved from DT.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart
> > <laurent.pinchart+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Since it's 100% dummy, why put LVDS into the name? This little thing here
> could be our generic "wrap drm_panel and attach it to a chain" helper. So
> what about calling this _The_ drm_panel_bridge, and also linking it into
> docs to feature it a bit more prominently.
I'm not opposed to that, except that this driver should not be considered as
just a helper to link a panel. It should only be used to support a real
hardware bridge that requires no control.
> I came up with this because I spotted some refactoring belows for building
> this helper, until I realized that this driver _is_ the helper I think we
> want ;-) Only thing missing is an exported function to instantiate a
> bridge with just a drm_panel as the parameter. And putting it into the
> drm_kms_helper.ko module.
What would that be used for ? The bridge should be instantiated by this bridge
driver, bound to a bridge device instantiated from DT (or the platform
firmware of your choice).
> > +static enum drm_connector_status
> > +lvds_connector_detect(struct drm_connector *connector, bool force)
> > +{
> > + return connector_status_connected;
> > +}
>
> We have piles of this exact dummy callback all over, maybe make it the
> default and rip them all out?
Done, "[PATCH] drm: Make the connector .detect() callback optional".
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
