> > > @@ -2305,6 +2360,11 @@ struct drm_connector {
> > > * @cec: CEC-related data.
> > > */
> > > struct drm_connector_cec cec;
> > > +
> > > + /**
> > > + * @writeback: Writeback related valriables.
> > > + */
> > > + struct drm_writeback_connector writeback;
> >
> > No, sorry, that's a bad idea. Most connectors have nothing to do with
> > writeback, you shouldn't introduce writeback-specific fields here.
> > drm_writeback_connector happens to be a drm_connector because of
> > historical reasons (it was decided to reuse the connector API exposed
> > to userspace instead of exposing a completely separate API in order to
> > simplify the implementation), but that does not mean that every
> > connector is related to writeback.
> >
> > I don't know what issues the Intel driver(s) have with
> > drm_writeback_connector, but you shouldn't make things worse for
> > everybody due to a driver problem.
>
> Suraj is trying to solve a problem that in Intel code every drm_connector must
> be an intel_connector too. His previous attempt resulted in a loose abstraction
> where drm_writeback_connector.base wasn't initialized in some cases (which is
> a bad idea IMO).
>
> I know the historical reasons for drm_writeback_connector, but I think we can
> do better now.
>
> So, I think, a proper approach would be:
>
> struct drm_connector {
> // other fields
>
> union {
> struct drm_connector_hdmi hdmi; // we already have it
> struct drm_connector_wb wb; // this is new
> };
>
> // rest of the fields.
> };
>
> I plan to add drm_connector_dp in a similar way, covering DP needs (currently
> WIP).
>
Right we are seeking to get an ACK on this design.
Regards,
Suraj Kandpal
> --
> With best wishes
> Dmitry
