> > > }; > > > > I still don't like that. This really doesn't belong here. If anything, > > the drm_connector for writeback belongs to drm_crtc. > > Why? We already have generic HDMI field inside drm_connector. I am really > hoping to be able to land DP parts next to it. In theory we can have a DVI- > specific entry there (e.g. with the subconnector type). > The idea is not to limit how the drivers subclass those structures. > > I don't see a good case why WB should deviate from that design. > > > If the issue is that some drivers need a custom drm_connector > > subclass, then I'd rather turn the connector field of > > drm_writeback_connector into a pointer. > > Having a pointer requires additional ops in order to get drm_connector from > WB code and vice versa. Having drm_connector_wb inside drm_connector > saves us from those ops (which don't manifest for any other kind of > structure). > Nor will it take any more space since union will reuse space already taken up > by > HDMI part. > > >
Seems like this thread has died. We need to get a conclusion on the design. Laurent do you have any issue with the design given Dmitry's explanation as to why this Design is good for drm_writeback_connector. Regards, Suraj Kandpal > > > I plan to add drm_connector_dp in a similar way, covering DP needs > > > (currently WIP). > > -- > With best wishes > Dmitry
