On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 11:44:01AM +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote: > On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 05:17:43 +0200 > Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 07:14:30PM +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote: > > > Add a devm/drmm action to these functions so the bridge reference is > > > dropped automatically when the caller is removed. > > > > I think the get() should go to the underlying of_drm_bridge_find() function. > > It is done in the following patch. > > Indeed I could swap patches 15 and 16 for clarity. Or I could squash > together patches 14+15+16, as they are various parts or the refcounted > bridge implementation, but I felt like keeping them separated would > help reviewing. I think most of refcounting should be introduced as a single patch, otherwise you risk having memory leaks or disappearing bridges. > > > Also it really feels like it's an overkill to keep the wrappers. After > > getting bridge being handled by the panel code would it be possible to > > drop all of them? > > Do you mean having only drm_of_get_bridge_by_node(), without any devm > or drmm variant? I'm not sure it is a good idea. Most DRM code (well, > all of it, technically) is currently unable of working with refcounted > bridges, but if they use the devm variant they will put the ref when > they disappear. > > > Then this patch might introduce one new devm_ > > function? Or are drmm_ functions actually being used to store data in > > the drmm-managed memory? > > Which devm function are you thinking about? Sorry, I'm not following > here. drmm_of_get_bridge() / devm_of_get_bridge(). I have a feeling (which of course might be wrong), that they were used somewhat randomly in some cases. > > Luca > > -- > Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin > Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering > https://bootlin.com -- With best wishes Dmitry
