On 10/6/21 11:47 AM, Robert Foss wrote:
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>
It works in tandem with the if (!ctx->dsi) return; at the beginning to
prevent crash in case the detach callback was called multiple times for
whatever reason.
