Hello,
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 09:56:55AM +0100, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> On 23/11/2023 18:54, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > this is a series I created while starring at the ti-sn65dsi86 driver in
> > the context of my pwm-lifetime series.
> >
> > The first patch should be fine. The last one has a few rough edges, but
> > maybe you like the direction this is going to? The 2nd patch probably
> > only makes sense if you also take the third.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Uwe
> >
> > Uwe Kleine-König (3):
> > drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Simplify using pm_runtime_resume_and_get()
> > drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Change parameters of
> > ti_sn65dsi86_{read,write}_u16
> > drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Loosen coupling of PWM to ti-sn65dsi86 core
> >
> > drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 146 +++++++++++++++-----------
> > 1 file changed, 83 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)
> >
> > base-commit: 4e87148f80d198ba5febcbcc969c6b9471099a09
>
> It looks fine to me, even without the goal to move the driver to drivers/pwm
> I think it's same to move the pwm ddata out of the main pdata ans associate
> it to the pwm aux device lifetime.
>
> I don't anything wrong, and so far it's of for me, let's see if there's comments
> for other people before applying!
I like 1/3 very much, but as mentioned in a reply to 3/3, I'm not
convinced by that one at all. Not only does it make the driver more
complex for, I believe, very little gain (if any), usage of
devm_kzalloc() in ti_sn_pwm_probe() is most likely wrong. Lifetime of
driver-specific structures need to be handled through reference
counting.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
