On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 04:33:57PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Wednesday 04 Jan 2017 14:51:48 Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Hm, something like drm_bridge_panel_bridge_init(dev, panel) should be > > enough, or not? My idea is to use this for the case where the only > > thing in dt is the panel, with no real bridge chip. And I think we > > don't need anything beyond that one _init function, plus maybe some > > additional paramaters ... > > There should be no bridge then. If you want the DRM core to manage panels > automatically, then we should create specific helpers for that, not abuse the > bridge infrastructure. Bridges should be instantiated from a hardware device > and bound to drivers as usual. I guess that's the part where I disagree: Just because there's physically no bridge doesn't mean we shouldn't just treat it as one in the software abstraction. If it looks and acts like a bridge (even an empty one), then imo it can be a bridge. If you insist on panels being panels, then I guess we need some other kind of glue to bind them into arbitrary bridge chains. But given that the callbacks match very closely, I don't see the point. In an idea world a panel would probably derive from a drm_bridge, but we're not in that universe unfortunately ;-) -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
