Hi,

> -----原始邮件-----
> 发件人: "Maxime Ripard" <mrip...@kernel.org>
> 发送时间: 2024-04-29 19:30:24 (星期一)
> 收件人: "Sui Jingfeng" <suijingf...@bosc.ac.cn>
> 抄送: "Sui Jingfeng" <sui.jingf...@linux.dev>, "Maarten Lankhorst" 
> <maarten.lankho...@linux.intel.com>, "Thomas Zimmermann" 
> <tzimmerm...@suse.de>, "David Airlie" <airl...@gmail.com>, "Daniel Vetter" 
> <dan...@ffwll.ch>, "Douglas Anderson" <diand...@chromium.org>, "Laurent 
> Pinchart" <laurent.pinchart+rene...@ideasonboard.com>, "Biju Das" 
> <biju.das...@bp.renesas.com>, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, 
> linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
> 主题: Re: drm/debugfs: Drop conditionals around of_node pointers
> 
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 04:52:13PM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> > ping
> > 
> > 在 2024/3/22 06:22, Sui Jingfeng 写道:
> > > Having conditional around the of_node pointer of the drm_bridge structure
> > > turns out to make driver code use ugly #ifdef blocks.
> 
> The code being ugly is an opinion, what problem is it causing exactly?
> 
> > Drop the conditionals to simplify debugfs.
> 
> What does it simplifies?
> 
> > > 
> > > Fixes: d8dfccde2709 ("drm/bridge: Drop conditionals around of_node 
> > > pointers")
> > > Signed-off-by: Sui Jingfeng <sui.jingf...@linux.dev>
> 
> Why do we want to backport that patch to stable?

My commit message is written based on commit of d8dfccde2709

$ git show c9e358dfc4a8
    
    This patch is based on commit c9e358dfc4a8 ("driver-core: remove
    conditionals around devicetree pointers").
    
    Having conditional around the of_node pointer of the drm_bridge
    structure turns out to make driver code use ugly #ifdef blocks. Drop the
    conditionals to simplify drivers. While this slightly increases the size
    of struct drm_bridge on non-OF system, the number of bridges used today
    and foreseen tomorrow on those systems is very low, so this shouldn't be
    an issue.
    
    So drop #if conditionals by adding struct device_node forward declaration.

> Maxime

I'm just start to contribute by mimic other people's tone, there seems no need
to over read.

Reply via email to