On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 06:20:33PM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:

On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:05:34 +0000
Liviu Dudau [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

What was the reason to keep the "ports" node instead of the device?

The function is an extract of common code sprinkled through a few DRM drivers,
they all used port rather than port->parent.

Sorry for I could find such drivers. May you give me any pointer?

imx-drm probably.

quoted

Have a look at my v2 where I've introduced two compare functions and also
modified the Rockchip compare_port() to use port->parent in the comparison. I
guess that should solve your problem.

Keeping the port instead of the parent asks for more code, but,
especially, it also asks for changes in the component drivers because,
at bind time, in 'data', they get a port instead of the device.

Sorry, this doesn't make sense.  You have far too many sub-clauses
which mean nothing at all.  Please rephrase.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.