Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-180032-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 16:58:40 +0200
From: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
To: Sui Jingfeng <sui.jingfeng@linux.dev>
Cc: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>, 
	Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] drm/bridge: Add 'struct device *' field to the
 drm_bridge structure
Message-ID: <20240515-copper-chimpanzee-of-fortitude-ff3dab@penduick>
References: <20240514154045.309925-1-sui.jingfeng@linux.dev>
 <20240514-scarlet-corgi-of-efficiency-faf2bb@penduick>
 <c44480ab-8d6b-4334-8eba-83db9b30ff1a@linux.dev>
 <20240515-fair-satisfied-myna-480dea@penduick>
 <d394ee32-4fa4-41a8-a5ca-c1c7f77f44d2@linux.dev>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha384;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="nnqcwypgq74a2js6"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d394ee32-4fa4-41a8-a5ca-c1c7f77f44d2@linux.dev>


--nnqcwypgq74a2js6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 10:53:00PM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> On 5/15/24 22:30, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 12:53:33AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> > > On 2024/5/15 00:22, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >=20
> > > > 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 br=
idge is
> > > > > a driver, it should know the underlying hardware entity.
> > > > Is there some actual benefits, or is it theoretical at this point?
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > 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.
> >=20
> > Sure, but why do we need to do so?
> >=20
> > The other thread you had with Jani points out that it turns out that
> > things are more complicated than "every bridge driver has a struct
> > device anyway", it creates inconsistency in the API (bridges would have
> > a struct device, but not other entities), and it looks like there's no
> > use for it anyway.
> >=20
> > None of these things are deal-breaker by themselves, but if there's only
> > downsides and no upside, it's not clear to me why we should do it at al=
l.
>
> It can reduce boilerplate.

You're still using a conditional here.

Maxime

--nnqcwypgq74a2js6
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJUEABMJAB0WIQTkHFbLp4ejekA/qfgnX84Zoj2+dgUCZkTNnwAKCRAnX84Zoj2+
dpZCAYCvwVAwC/xH/sNA6jr+W48uYJHUiGFm1EaRagcrEpn+Vmm6ntjQFe8LLIpl
eQetDGgBgN4V7i9OmkXkcdhGNkhsT/oGnh3L3/mF7PFNx89Z5mm5Cnw9b0axTGbn
lAqrW3gWLg==
=4/O0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nnqcwypgq74a2js6--