Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Message-ID: <963d7722-738f-4e46-bfb7-131027ca5341@linux.dev>
Date:   Thu, 23 Nov 2023 23:41:35 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] drm/bridge: it66121: Allow link this driver as a lib
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Cc:     Phong LE <ple@baylibre.com>,
        Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
        Sui Jingfeng <suijingfeng@loongson.cn>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>
References: <20231114150130.497915-1-sui.jingfeng@linux.dev>
 <20231114150130.497915-9-sui.jingfeng@linux.dev>
 <CAA8EJprQq3aDhzE+yKGZ2-nsuHWcptzMvApsyOi9D63PgeiZ3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <79301d04-c0cb-4740-8a6d-27a889b65daf@linux.dev>
 <CAA8EJpom5kAbDkacOdqp6BR7YPfmCSXaQfDYRVcLf9eGmi64CQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <121163c9-0d56-47ad-a12e-e67390fef2b4@linux.dev>
 <CAA8EJpowjhX=LL-9cnQL4pfCei63zNkCGW5wGOeeFxcnFpNCVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00ba2245-0e48-4b21-bcd4-29dfb728e408@linux.dev>
 <CAA8EJpoiehS2wS3ri_DggzxeEfLY4yK7X6c+bCFKvkwSce6r+A@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Sui Jingfeng <sui.jingfeng@linux.dev>
In-Reply-To: <CAA8EJpoiehS2wS3ri_DggzxeEfLY4yK7X6c+bCFKvkwSce6r+A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi,


On 2023/11/23 16:08, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> The semantics of DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR flag are implement-defined,
> No, they are not. Semantics are pretty simple: do not create the
> drm_connector instance. Pass the flag to the next bridge in the chain.


Then, my problem is that do we allow create a drm_connector instance in drm bridge
driver nowadays?