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, > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > Sure, but why do we need to do so? > > > > 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. > > > > 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 all. > > It can reduce boilerplate.
You're still using a conditional here. Maxime
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
