On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 06:20:33PM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: > On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:05:34 +0000 > Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau at arm.com> 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? imx-drm probably. > > 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. Sorry, this doesn't make sense. You have far too many sub-clauses which mean nothing at all. Please rephrase. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.
