Hi Rob,
Thank you for the patch.
On Sat, Jul 06, 2019 at 01:31:02PM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> From: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This should be more future-proof if we ever encounter a device with two
> of these bridges.
>
> Suggested-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> index c8fb45e7b06d..9f4ff88d4a10 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE(status);
>
> static void ti_sn_debugfs_init(struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata)
> {
> - pdata->debugfs = debugfs_create_dir("ti_sn65dsi86", NULL);
> + pdata->debugfs = debugfs_create_dir(dev_name(pdata->dev), NULL);
That should work, but won't it become quite confusing for users ? I
wonder if the directory name shouldn't be prefixed with the driver name.
Something like "ti_sn65dsi86:%s", dev_name(pdata->dev).
> debugfs_create_file("status", 0600, pdata->debugfs, pdata,
> &status_fops);
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
