Re: [PATCH v2 01/26] drm/bridge: allow optionally specifying an owner .odev device

[Peter Rosin]

On 2018-05-09 17:53, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2018-05-09 17:08, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>> On 04.05.2018 15:51, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> Bridge drivers can now (temporarily, in a transition phase) select if
>>> they want to provide a full owner device or keep just providing an
>>> of_node.
>>>
>>> By providing a full owner device, the bridge drivers no longer need
>>> to provide an of_node since that node is available via the owner
>>> device.
>>>
>>> When all bridge drivers provide an owner device, that will become
>>> mandatory and the .of_node member will be removed.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c             | 3 ++-
>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_lvds.c | 4 +++-
>>
>> What is the reason to put rockchip here? Shouldn't be in separate patch?
> 
> Because the rockchip driver peeks into the bridge struct and all the
> changes in this patch relate to making the new .odev member optional in
> the transition phase, when the bridge can have either a new-style odev
> or an old style of_node.
> 
> I guess this rockchip change could be patch 2, but it has to come first
> after this patch and it makes no sense on its own. Hence, one patch.
> 
> This rockchip_lvds interaction is also present in patch 24/26
> drm/bridge: remove the .of_node member
> 
> I can split them if you want, but I personally don't see the point.

I had a second look, and maybe the series should start with a patch like
this instead, so that the rockchip_lvds.c hunks can be removed from
patch 1/26 and 24/26. That would perhaps be slightly cleaner?

On the other hand, it's orthogonal and this series can be left as is
(with the benefit of me not having to do another iteration and you all
not having another bunch of messages to sift through). The below
patch could easily be (adjusted and) applied later instead. Or not,
since the right fix is to do this with the newfangled static image
format mechanism from Jacopo Mondi, and it might be easier to just do
it right.

State your preference.

Cheers,
Peter