Re: [PATCH 04/11] drm/panel: merge the drm_kms_helper module into the drm module
"Luca Ceresoli" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.freedesktop.lists.dri-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Maxime, On Mon Aug 24, 2026 at 9:48 AM CEST, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 02:27:58PM +0200, Luca Ceresoli wrote: >> On Mon Aug 17, 2026 at 10:31 AM CEST, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> > On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 04:05:52PM +0200, Luca Ceresoli wrote: >> >> Work is in progress to make every drm_panel automatically create a >> >> panel_bridge [0][1]. >> >> >> >> This requires the panel code to call the drm_panel_bridge APIs. However >> >> this would create a circular dependency loop on modular builds: >> >> >> >> __devm_drm_panel_alloc() [drm] >> >> -> drm_panel_bridge_add() [drm_kms_helper] >> >> -> drm_bridge.c APIs [drm] >> >> >> >> Moving just the panel_brige.o file from [drm_kms_helper] to [drm] does not >> >> work because the panel bridge code uses the drm_atomic_helper and >> >> drm_probe_helper which add further dependencies on symbols in the >> >> [drm_kms_helper] module. >> >> >> >> So take a simple approach, and move the entire drm_kms_helper into the >> >> [drm] module. >> >> >> >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/emuj2innmp6zmzd7pyakqzjqpdzhly6qfhakya3ydwmd63pl26@5jwxaidpikjw/ [0] >> >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/ [1] >> >> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]> >> > >> > So, that's not an option. However, why do we need drm_panel_bridge_add() >> > after this work is done? If we want to create a bridge for every panel, >> > then the bridge implementation can live in drm_panel.c, which is part of >> > the drm module. >> > >> > And we'd essentially move drm_panel_bridge into drm_panel.c, and make it >> > private. >> >> Yes in theory, but the panel_bridge code uses other parts of the >> drm_kms_helper module: drm_atomic_helper and drm_probe_helper, maybe more, >> so we'd have to move them into the drm module too. > > Ah, right. What would happen if we were doing it the other way around > then? Move drm_panel out of the main drm module? Into the drm_kms_helper module? I had a look and did some experiments and I found at least one user in the drm module calling a drm_panel API, and guess who: drm_of_find_panel_or_bridge() (in drm_of.c, drm module) -> calls of_drm_find_panel (in drm_panel.c, drm_kms_helper module) Based on our discussion after patch 3, I'm not sure drm_of_find_panel_or_bridge() will disappear soon. If it doesn't, I guess we can try to move drm_of_find_panel_or_bridge() into bridge/panel.c which is in the drm_kms_helper module (and from drm_of.h info drm_bridge.h?). That however might trigger build failures for drivers which currently don't select DRM_KMS_HELPER and which would have to select it. I'll give it a try, and if I see major drawbacks I will get back to moving all the drm_kms_helper code into the main drm module. >> Is it worth trying to identify only the closure of files in drm_kms_helpers >> that are actually used by the panel_bridg, and move only them? That'd mean >> having some *_helper.c files in the drm module and other *_helper.c files >> in the drm module. >> >> There's a licensing aspect too: drm_panel.c is MIT-licensed, bridge/panel.c >> is GPL-2.0-or-later. However my understanding is that we can merge the two >> into a single file and the result would all be GPL-2.0-or-later, so that is >> an option. > > Yeah, that's not a concern. Good, thanks for the feedback on this. Luca -- Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com