From: Brian Starkey <Brian.Starkey@arm.com>
To: "james qian wang (Arm Technology China)" <james.qian.wang@arm.com>
Cc: Mihail Atanassov <Mihail.Atanassov@arm.com>,
"dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org"
<dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@arm.com>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
nd <nd@arm.com>, Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run>
Subject: Re: [RFC,3/3] drm/komeda: Allow non-component drm_bridge only endpoints
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 10:48:12 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191017104812.6qpuzoh5bx5i2y3m@DESKTOP-E1NTVVP.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191017102055.GA8308@jamwan02-TSP300>
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:21:03AM +0000, james qian wang (Arm Technology China) wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 08:20:56AM +0000, Brian Starkey wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 03:07:59AM +0000, james qian wang (Arm Technology China) wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 04:22:07PM +0000, Brian Starkey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If James is strongly against merging this, maybe we just swap
> > > > wholesale to bridge? But for me, the pragmatic approach would be this
> > > > stop-gap.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is a good idea, and I vote +ULONG_MAX :)
> > >
> > > and I also checked tda998x driver, it supports bridge. so swap the
> > > wholesale to brige is perfect. :)
> > >
> >
> > Well, as Mihail wrote, it's definitely not perfect.
> >
> > Today, if you rmmod tda998x with the DPU driver still loaded,
> > everything will be unbound gracefully.
> >
> > If we swap to bridge, then rmmod'ing tda998x (or any other bridge
> > driver the DPU is using) with the DPU driver still loaded will result
> > in a crash.
>
> I haven't read the bridge code, but seems this is a bug of drm_bridge,
> since if the bridge is still in using by others, the rmmod should fail
>
Correct, but there's no fix for that today. You can also take a look
at the thread linked from Mihail's cover letter.
> And personally opinion, if the bridge doesn't handle the dependence.
> for us:
>
> - add such support to bridge
That would certainly be helpful. I don't know if there's consensus on
how to do that.
> or
> - just do the insmod/rmmod in correct order.
>
> > So, there really are proper benefits to sticking with the component
> > code for tda998x, which is why I'd like to understand why you're so
> > against this patch?
> >
>
> This change handles two different connectors in komeda internally, compare
> with one interface, it increases the complexity, more risk of bug and more
> cost of maintainance.
>
Well, it's only about how to bind the drivers - two different methods
of binding, not two different connectors. I would argue that carrying
our out-of-tree patches to support both platforms is a larger
maintenance burden.
Honestly this looks like a win-win to me. We get the superior approach
when its supported, and still get to support bridges which are more
common.
As/when improvements are made to the bridge code we can remove the
component bits and not lose anything.
> So my suggestion is keeping on one single interface in komeda, no
> matter it is bridge or component, but I'd like it only one, but not
> them both in komeda.
If we can put the effort into fixing bridges then I guess that's the
best approach for everyone :-) Might not be easy though!
-Brian
>
> Thanks
> James
>
> > Thanks,
> > -Brian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-17 10:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-04 14:34 [PATCH 0/3] drm/komeda: Support for drm_bridge endpoints Mihail Atanassov
2019-10-04 14:34 ` [PATCH 1/3] drm/komeda: Consolidate struct komeda_drv allocations Mihail Atanassov
2019-10-04 14:34 ` [PATCH 2/3] drm/komeda: Memory manage struct komeda_drv in probe/remove Mihail Atanassov
2019-10-04 14:34 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] drm/komeda: Allow non-component drm_bridge only endpoints Mihail Atanassov
2019-10-09 5:54 ` [RFC,3/3] " james qian wang (Arm Technology China)
2019-10-16 15:51 ` Mihail Atanassov
2019-10-16 16:22 ` Brian Starkey
2019-10-17 3:07 ` james qian wang (Arm Technology China)
2019-10-17 8:20 ` Brian Starkey
2019-10-17 10:21 ` james qian wang (Arm Technology China)
2019-10-17 10:48 ` Brian Starkey [this message]
2019-10-17 11:41 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-10-18 6:57 ` james qian wang (Arm Technology China)
2019-10-18 9:12 ` Brian Starkey
2019-10-22 8:42 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-10-22 8:48 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-10-22 8:50 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-10-22 14:42 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-10-22 14:53 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-10-24 8:03 ` Mihail Atanassov
2019-10-24 5:21 ` james qian wang (Arm Technology China)
2019-10-18 6:38 ` james qian wang (Arm Technology China)
2019-10-18 11:01 ` Mihail Atanassov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191017104812.6qpuzoh5bx5i2y3m@DESKTOP-E1NTVVP.localdomain \
--to=brian.starkey@arm.com \
--cc=Liviu.Dudau@arm.com \
--cc=Mihail.Atanassov@arm.com \
--cc=airlied@linux.ie \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=james.qian.wang@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=mripard@kernel.org \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
--cc=sean@poorly.run \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).