Hi,
On 5/15/24 18:28, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2024, Sui Jingfeng <sui.jingf...@linux.dev> wrote:
Hi,
On 5/15/24 17:39, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2024, Sui Jingfeng <sui.jingf...@linux.dev> wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
index 584d109330ab..1928d9d0dd3c 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
@@ -213,6 +213,23 @@ void drm_bridge_add(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_bridge_add);
+/**
+ * drm_bridge_add_with_dev - add the given bridge to the global bridge list
+ *
+ * @bridge: bridge control structure
+ * @dev: pointer to the kernel device that this bridge is backed.
+ */
+void drm_bridge_add_with_dev(struct drm_bridge *bridge, struct device *dev)
+{
+ if (dev) {
+ bridge->kdev = dev;
+ bridge->of_node = dev->of_node;
+ }
+
+ drm_bridge_add(bridge);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(drm_bridge_add_with_dev);
I don't actually have an opinion on whether the dev parameter is useful
or not.
But please don't add a drm_bridge_add_with_dev() and then convert more
than half the drm_bridge_add() users to that. Please just add a struct
device *dev parameter to drm_bridge_add(), and pass NULL if it's not
relevant.
To be honest, previously, I'm just do it exactly same as the way you
told me here. But I'm exhausted and finally give up.
Because this is again need me to modify *all* callers of
drm_bridge_add(), not only those bridges in drm/bridge/, but also
bridge instances in various KMS drivers.
However, their some exceptions just don't fit!
For example, the imx/imx8qxp-pixel-combiner.c just don't fit our
simple model. Our helper function assume that one device backing
one drm_bridge instance (1 to 1). Yet, that driver backing two or
more bridges with one platform device (1 to 2, 1 to 3, ..., ).
Hence, the imx/imx8qxp-pixel-combiner.c just can't use
drm_bridge_add_with_dev().
The aux_hpd_bridge.c is also bad, it store the of_node of struct device
at the .platform_data member of the struct device.
Like I said, "pass NULL if it's not relevant."
OK, good idea.
"_add_with_dev" is a terrible function name.
What if you need to add another parameter later? Add _add_with_foo and
_add_with_dev_and_foo variants?
Yes, you are right, I'll back give another try then.
BR,
Jani.
--
Best regards
Sui
