Hi Sui,
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 12:42:41AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> On 2024/3/19 00:06, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > Commit 00084f0c01bf ("drm: bridge: thc63lvd1024: Switch to use
> > of_graph_get_remote_node()") simplified the thc63lvd1024 driver by
> > replacing hand-rolled code with a helper function.
>
> [...]
>
> > While doing so, it
> > created an error code path at probe time without any error message,
>
> If this is a reason or a concern, then every drm bridges drivers will suffer from
> such a concern. Right?
Yes, bridge drivers (or any driver, really) should avoid failing probe
silently.
> > potentially causing probe issues that get annoying to debug.
>
> Sorry, let's keep it fair enough, it creates nothing annoyed.
>
> If there is a probe issues, then, it is caused by ill-behavioral DT.
> *NOT* my patch. And should be found during review stage.
Even before the review stage, in the DT development stage. My point is
that creating a silent failure path in probe will make it more difficult
for DT developers to debug issues.
> If the of_graph_get_remote_node() function is not good enough,
> I suggest to improve the of_graph_get_remote_node() function,
> then all callers of it will benefits.
>
> Well, the strong word here just terrifying new programmers to call
> core function helpers. Please use more *soft* description in the
> commit message.
Could you please propose a wording that you would consider more soft ?
> > Fix it by
> > adding an error message.
> >
> > Fixes: 00084f0c01bf ("drm: bridge: thc63lvd1024: Switch to use of_graph_get_remote_node()")
>
> Please drop the fixes tag at here, append the tag to a real bug-fix patch will make more sense imo.
> I suggest to improve the of_graph_get_remote_node() function, then all callers of it will benefits.
> NOT a single implement like this.
Improving core helpers is certainly a good idea, and if we do so, we can
simplify drivers. What I'm concerned is that commit 00084f0c01bf creates
a silent probe failure path, which didn't exist before it. This is why
this patch references it in the Fixes: tag, making sure that this patch
will get backported to any stable kernel that includes commit
00084f0c01bf. As far as I understand, this is business as usual. There's
nothing personal here, and no judgement on the quality of your code.
> > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/thc63lvd1024.c | 5 ++++-
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/thc63lvd1024.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/thc63lvd1024.c
> > index 5f99f9724081..674efc489e3a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/thc63lvd1024.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/thc63lvd1024.c
> > @@ -125,8 +125,11 @@ static int thc63_parse_dt(struct thc63_dev *thc63)
> >
> > remote = of_graph_get_remote_node(thc63->dev->of_node,
> > THC63_RGB_OUT0, -1);
> > - if (!remote)
> > + if (!remote) {
> > + dev_err(thc63->dev, "No remote endpoint for port@%u\n",
> > + THC63_RGB_OUT0);
> > return -ENODEV;
> > + }
> >
> > thc63->next = of_drm_find_bridge(remote);
> > of_node_put(remote);
> >
> > base-commit: 00084f0c01bf3a2591d007010b196e048281c455
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
