On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Thierry Reding <thierry.red...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 03:19:36PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Ajay kumar <ajayn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Daniel Vetter <dan...@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. I am not sure about drm_panel. But, I am not really doing anything with the struct device pointer in case of bridge. So, just wondering if it is really needed?
Ajay -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
