On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 03:19:36PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Ajay kumar ajaynumb@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch wrote:
[...]
Hm, if you do this can you pls also update drm_panel accordingly? It shouldn't be a lot of fuzz and would make things around drm+dt more consistent.
Are you talking about using struct device_node instead of struct device? I guess you have misplaced the comment under the wrong section!
Yeah, that should have been one up ;-)
Like I said earlier, I don't think dropping struct device * in favour of struct device_node * is a good idea.
If you want to document drm_bridge then I recomment to sprinkle proper kerneldoc over drm_bridge.c and pull it all into the drm DocBook template. That way all the drm documentation is in one place. I've done that for drm_crtc.h in an unrelated patch series (but based upon a branch with your patch here included) and there's struct drm_bridge* in there. Hence why I've noticed.
Can you send a link for that? And, is there any problem if the doc comes later?
Since quite a while we've asked for the kerneldoc polish as part of each drm core patch series. It's just that drm_bridge/panel kinda have flown under the radar of the people usually asking for docs ;-)
FWIW, there's some kerneldoc in include/drm/drm_panel.h but I guess I could write up something more complete and integrate it into DocBook.
Thierry