Hi Javier,
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 5:03 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas javier@dowhile0.org wrote:
Hello Ajay,
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Thierry Reding thierry.reding@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:33:28PM +0530, Ajay kumar wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Thierry Reding thierry.reding@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
I think it should even be possible to do this in more separate steps. For example you could add the new bridge infrastructure without touching any of the existing drivers (so that they are completely unaffected by the changes) and then start converting one by one.
For some of the changes this may be difficult (such as the dev -> drm_dev rename to make room for the new struct device *dev). But that could for example be done in a preparatory patch that first renames the field, so that the "infrastructure" patch can add the new field without renaming any fields and therefore needing changes to drivers directly.
The goal of that whole exercise is to allow display drivers to keep working with the existing API (ptn3460_init()) while we convert the bridge drivers to register with the new framework. Then we can more safely convert each display driver individually to make use of the new framework and once all drivers have been converted the old API can simply be removed.
That way there should be no impact on existing functionality at any point.
As of now only exynos_dp uses ptn3460_init. And, also only 2 drivers use drm_bridge_init. It should be really easy to bisect if something goes wrong. Still, I will try to divide it so that each patch contains minimal change.
Thanks.
Do you plan to address Thierry's concerns and re-spin this patch?
Same question for patches:
"drm/bridge: Add i2c based driver for ptn3460 bridge" "drm/bridge: Add i2c based driver for ps8622/ps8625 bridge"
Yes, I will. I was caught up with some other work. I will be sending a version ASAP.
Ajay