17.04.2020 23:31, Laurent Pinchart пишет: > Hi Dmitry, > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 10:41:59PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> 17.04.2020 22:30, Laurent Pinchart пишет: >> ... >>>> #include <drm/drm_atomic.h> >>>> +#include <drm/drm_bridge.h> >>> >>> You could add a forward declaration of struct drm_bridge instead, that >>> can lower the compilation time a little bit. >> >> This include is not only for the struct, but also for the >> drm_bridge_attach(). It looks to me that it should be nicer to keep the >> include here. > > drm_bridge_attach() is called from .c files. In the .h file you can use > a forward declaration. It's entirely up to you, but as a general rule, I > personally try to use forward structure declarations in .h files as much > as possible. The current Tegra DRM code is a bit inconsistent in regards to having forward declarations, it doesn't have them more than have. I'll add a forward declaration if there will be need to make a v5, ok? >> ... >>>> + port = of_get_child_by_name(output->of_node, "port"); >>> >>> Do you need to check for the presence of a port node first ? Can you >>> just check the return value of drm_of_find_panel_or_bridge(), and fall >>> back to "nvidia,panel" if it returns -ENODEV ? >> >> Without the check, the drm_of_find_panel_or_bridge() prints a very noisy >> error message about missing port node for every output that doesn't have >> a graph specified in a device-tree (HDMI, DSI and etc). >> >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.7-rc1/source/drivers/of/property.c#L621 > > Ah yes indeed. That's not very nice. > Please let me know if you'll have a better idea about how this could be handled.
