On Thu, 16 Nov 2023, Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 at 12:29, Sui Jingfeng <sui.jingfeng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> On 2023/11/15 00:30, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> >> @@ -703,14 +704,32 @@ static int it66121_bridge_attach(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
>> >> enum drm_bridge_attach_flags flags)
>> >> {
>> >> struct it66121_ctx *ctx = bridge_to_it66121(bridge);
>> >> + struct drm_bridge *next_bridge = ctx->next_bridge;
>> >> + struct drm_encoder *encoder = bridge->encoder;
>> >> int ret;
>> >>
>> >> - if (!(flags & DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR))
>> >> - return -EINVAL;
>> >> + if (next_bridge) {
>> >> + if (!(flags & DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR)) {
>> >> + WARN_ON(1);
>> > Why? At least use WARN() instead
>>
>> If (next_bridge) is true, it says that the driver *already* known that
>> it66121 have a next bridges attached. Then it66121 driver should certainly
>> attach it, no matter what it is. Either a connector or another display bridge.
>> It also says that this is a DT-based system on such a case. CallingWARN_ON(1) here helps to see(print) which DC driver is doing the wired
>> things. Ok, I will remove the WARN_ON(1) on the next version.
>
> That's why I pointed you to WARN(). WARN_ON(1) gives no information to
> the user. WARN() allows you to add a message.
Please use drm_WARN* while at it.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel
