Re: [PATCH 03/11] drm: of: drm_of_find_panel_or_bridge: prioritize the bridge, not the panel
Maxime Ripard <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.freedesktop.lists.dri-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20260824-bouncy-papaya-cat-2c2073@houat> |
On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 02:23:05PM +0200, Luca Ceresoli wrote: > > That being said, if we do create a panel_bridge for every panel, why do > > we still need drm_of_find_panel_or_bridge()? We'll only really need > > of_drm_find_bridge(), no? > > Yes, in the long term we can get rid of drm_of_find_panel_or_bridge(), but > not in the short term due to the above mentioned drivers, and others which > use it in "creative" ways. > > The point is about the transition. This patch was an attempt to convert at > once all the many drivers which use the most common pattern: > > | drm_of_find_panel_or_bridge(..., &panel, &bridge); > | if (panel) > | bridge = drm_panel_bridge_add(); > > to then fix manually the remaining drivers (patches 6-11). > > But this approach doesn't fly due to the legacy users of > drm_of_find_panel_or_bridge() as mentioned above. > > So what about this other approach instead: > > 1. leave drm_of_find_panel_or_bridge() as is (it's already deprecated anyway) > 2. keep patch 5 (which "breaks" mayt drivers which would create an additional > panel_bridge) > 3. perhaps add a warning when an additional bridge is created for the > some panel > 4. *in the same series*, manually convert *all* drivers to use > of_drm_find_bridge() or of_drm_get_bridge_by_endpoint() -- like patches > 6-11, but done on all drivers > 5. apply the series atomically, because it wouldn't be bisectable between > items 2 and 4 > > Your opinion? If we look at the drivers causing us troubles, fsl-ldb, samsung-dsim, tc358767 and waveshare-dsi can be converted directly to devm_drm_of_get_bridge(). mcde-dsi is a mess and would be hard to fix indeed, but since it's the only really troublesome one, maybe we can just duplicate the code in the driver and drop / rewrite the common code however we see fit. Maxime
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 273 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iJUEABMJAB0WIQTkHFbLp4ejekA/qfgnX84Zoj2+dgUCaov99AAKCRAnX84Zoj2+ dm5RAYDFgncWfB8HNVBV3A4Zy3M1e1HjfjQlHBNI/8wz2WrjIFMjDK3NHra4s3x1 HWUTpmMBgIl7aZq/J/YJAo6vpIB/4wV7ZaQtf1Qmu3VMOYg+lkL7S3tA5Due5REl ljvLSizFiA== =7yEV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----