Maxime, On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 10:00 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 2:17 AM Maxime Ripard <maxime@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 12:29:43PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > > This adds a devm managed version of drm_bridge_add(). Like other > > > "devm" function listed in drm_bridge.h, this function takes an > > > explicit "dev" to use for the lifetime management. A few notes: > > > * In general we have a "struct device" for bridges that makes a good > > > candidate for where the lifetime matches exactly what we want. > > > * The "bridge->dev->dev" device appears to be the encoder > > > device. That's not the right device to use for lifetime management. > > > > > > Suggested-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > If we are to introduce more managed helpers, I think it'd be wiser to > > introduce them as DRM-managed, and not device managed. > > > > Otherwise, you'll end up in a weird state when a device has been removed > > but the DRM device is still around. > > I'm kinda confused. In this case there is no DRM device for the bridge > and, as per my CL description, "bridge-dev->dev" appears to be the > encoder device. I wasn't personally involved in discussions about it, > but I was under the impression that this was expected / normal. Thus > we can't make this DRM-managed. Since I didn't hear a reply, I'll assume that my response addressed your concerns. Assuming I get reviews for the other two patches in this series I'll plan to land this with Dmitry's review. -Doug
