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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <77c3ad35-24e4-4bf4-87a1-f48e13a6b838@linux.dev>
In-Reply-To: <77c3ad35-24e4-4bf4-87a1-f48e13a6b838@linux.dev>
From:   Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 23 Nov 2023 19:39:08 +0200
Message-ID: <CAA8EJpoAOeb_zGBwGPN0ymo=ZJk3_jFamhF3Qede-9uBvXpK0g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] drm/bridge: it66121: Allow link this driver as a lib
To:     Sui Jingfeng <sui.jingfeng@linux.dev>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 at 19:04, Sui Jingfeng <sui.jingfeng@linux.dev> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> On 2023/11/23 16:08, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>> The host can not specify the
> >>> DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR flag, it will cause a warning here. And
> >>> it can not omit the flag (as otherwise the first bridge will create a
> >>> connector, without consulting the second bridge).
> >> The semantics of DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR flagare 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.
> >
> >> for our case, I could just ignore it if their
> >> don't have a signal(DT or ACPI) tell me that there are multiple bridges
> >> in the chain. This depend on community's attitude.
> > Ignoring a flag is a bad idea.
>
>
> Can you also read the code in the bridge/lontium-lt8912.c please?
> when flags == 0 is true, the lt8912 driver will just create
> a drm_connector instance in the drm bridge drivers. The behavior
> is similar with this patch in the perspective of spirit.
>
> And the most important thing is that no matter what the flag the upstream
> port is passed, lt8912 just always pass the DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR
> flags to the next bridge. Does this count as a kind of ignore? or
>
> This is to say that both the lt8912 and the tfp410 drm bridge drivers are
> allowing create a drm_connector manually in drm bridge drivers. They didn't
> being asked to move the drm_connector related code to display controller
> driver. I don't know why I can't follow this way?

This is called 'legacy'.

>
> Do you really read the code before do comments or I failed to understand something?


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry