>
On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 04:40, Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Move detach implementation from sn65dsi83_remove() to dedicated
.detach callback. There is no functional change to the code, but
> that detach is now in the correct location.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jagan Teki <jagan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Robert Foss <robert.foss@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi83.c | 17 ++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi83.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi83.c
> index 4ea71d7f0bfbc..13ee313daba96 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi83.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi83.c
> @@ -288,6 +288,19 @@ static int sn65dsi83_attach(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static void sn65dsi83_detach(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
> +{
> + struct sn65dsi83 *ctx = bridge_to_sn65dsi83(bridge);
> +
> + if (!ctx->dsi)
> + return;
> +
> + mipi_dsi_detach(ctx->dsi);
> + mipi_dsi_device_unregister(ctx->dsi);
> + drm_bridge_remove(&ctx->bridge);
> + ctx->dsi = NULL;
Is this assignment necessary? I'm not seeing it in the other drivers.
WIth this cleared up feel free to add my r-b.
Reviewed-by: Robert Foss <robert.foss@xxxxxxxxxx>
