Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-178970-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <c44480ab-8d6b-4334-8eba-83db9b30ff1a@linux.dev>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 00:53:33 +0800
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] drm/bridge: Add 'struct device *' field to the
 drm_bridge structure
To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
Cc: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>,
 Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>,
 dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20240514154045.309925-1-sui.jingfeng@linux.dev>
 <20240514-scarlet-corgi-of-efficiency-faf2bb@penduick>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Sui Jingfeng <sui.jingfeng@linux.dev>
In-Reply-To: <20240514-scarlet-corgi-of-efficiency-faf2bb@penduick>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

On 2024/5/15 00:22, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 11:40:43PM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
>> Because a lot of implementations has already added it into their drived
>> class, promote it into drm_bridge core may benifits a lot. drm bridge is
>> a driver, it should know the underlying hardware entity.
> Is there some actual benefits, or is it theoretical at this point?


I think, DRM bridge drivers could remove the 'struct device *dev'
member from their derived structure. Rely on the drm bridge core
when they need the 'struct device *' pointer.

> Maxime

-- 
Best regards,
Sui