On 2018-04-27 09:11, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On 27.04.2018 00:31, Peter Rosin wrote: >> Hi! >> >> It was noted by Russel King [1] that bridges (not using components) >> might disappear unexpectedly if the owner of the bridge was unbound. >> Jyri Sarha had previously noted the same thing with panels [2]. Jyri >> came up with using device links to resolve the panel issue, which >> was also my (independent) reaction to the note from Russel. >> >> This series builds up to the addition of that link in the last >> patch, but in my opinion the other 23 patches do have merit on their >> own. >> >> The last patch needs testing, while the others look trivial. That >> said, I might have missed some subtlety. > > of_node is used as an identifier of the bridge in the kernel. If you > replace it with device pointer there will be potential problem with > devices having two or more bridges, how do you differentiate bridges if > the owner is the same? If I remember correctly current bridge code does > not allow to have multiple bridges in one device, but that should be > quite easy to fix if necessary. After this change it will become more > difficult. I don't see how it will be more difficult? > Anyway I remember discussion that in DT world bridge should be > identified rather by of_graph port node, not by parent node as it is > now. If you want to translate this relation to device owner, you should > add also port number to have full identification of the bridge, ie pair > (owner, port_number) would be equivalent of port node. You even state the trivial solution here, just add the port/endpoint ID when/if it is needed. So, what is the significant difference? Cheers, Peter
