On 2018-05-15 12:22, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:40 PM, Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 2018-05-14 18:28, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 09:37:47AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>> On 2018-05-10 10:10, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>>>>> On 04.05.2018 15:52, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>>> If the bridge supplier is unbound, this will bring the bridge consumer
>>>>>> down along with the bridge. Thus, there will no longer linger any
>>>>>> dangling pointers from the bridge consumer (the drm_device) to some
>>>>>> non-existent bridge supplier.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>> include/drm/drm_bridge.h | 2 ++
>>>>>> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
>>>>>> index 78d186b6831b..0259f0a3ff27 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
>>>>>> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
>>>>>> #include <linux/mutex.h>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #include <drm/drm_bridge.h>
>>>>>> +#include <drm/drm_device.h>
>>>>>> #include <drm/drm_encoder.h>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #include "drm_crtc_internal.h"
>>>>>> @@ -127,12 +128,25 @@ int drm_bridge_attach(struct drm_encoder *encoder, struct drm_bridge *bridge,
>>>>>> if (bridge->dev)
>>>>>> return -EBUSY;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + if (encoder->dev->dev != bridge->odev) {
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder why device_link_add does not handle this case (self dependency)
>>>>> silently as noop, as it seems to be a correct behavior.
>>>>
>>>> It's kind-of a silly corner-case though, so perfectly understandable
>>>> that it isn't handled.
>>>>
>>>>>> + bridge->link = device_link_add(encoder->dev->dev,
>>>>>> + bridge->odev, 0);
>>>>>> + if (!bridge->link) {
>>>>>> + dev_err(bridge->odev, "failed to link bridge to %s\n",
>>>>>> + dev_name(encoder->dev->dev));
>>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> bridge->dev = encoder->dev;
>>>>>> bridge->encoder = encoder;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (bridge->funcs->attach) {
>>>>>> ret = bridge->funcs->attach(bridge);
>>>>>> if (ret < 0) {
>>>>>> + if (bridge->link)
>>>>>> + device_link_del(bridge->link);
>>>>>> + bridge->link = NULL;
>>>>>> bridge->dev = NULL;
>>>>>> bridge->encoder = NULL;
>>>>>> return ret;
>>>>>> @@ -159,6 +173,10 @@ void drm_bridge_detach(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
>>>>>> if (bridge->funcs->detach)
>>>>>> bridge->funcs->detach(bridge);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + if (bridge->link)
>>>>>> + device_link_del(bridge->link);
>>>>>> + bridge->link = NULL;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> bridge->dev = NULL;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/include/drm/drm_bridge.h b/include/drm/drm_bridge.h
>>>>>> index b656e505d11e..804189c63a4c 100644
>>>>>> --- a/include/drm/drm_bridge.h
>>>>>> +++ b/include/drm/drm_bridge.h
>>>>>> @@ -261,6 +261,7 @@ struct drm_bridge_timings {
>>>>>> * @list: to keep track of all added bridges
>>>>>> * @timings: the timing specification for the bridge, if any (may
>>>>>> * be NULL)
>>>>>> + * @link: drm consumer <-> bridge supplier
>>>>>
>>>>> Nitpick: "<->" suggests symmetry, maybe "device link from drm consumer
>>>>> to the bridge" would be better.
>>>>
>>>> I meant "<->" to indicate that the link is bidirectional, not that the
>>>> relationship is in any way symmetric. I wasn't aware of any implication
>>>> of a symmetric relationship when using "<->", do you have a reference?
>>>> But I guess the different arrow notations in math are somewhat overloaded
>>>> and that someone at some point must have used "<->" to indicate a
>>>> symmetric relationship...
>>>
>>> Yeah I agree with Andrzej here, for me <-> implies a symmetric
>>> relationship. Spelling it out like Andrzej suggested sounds like the
>>> better idea.
>>> -Daniel
>>
>> Ok, I guess that means I have to do a v3 after all. Or can this
>> trivial documentation update be done by the committer? I hate to
>> spam everyone with another volley...
>>
>> Or perhaps I should squash patches 2-23 that are all rather similar
>> and mechanic? I separated them to allow for easier review from
>> individual driver maintainers, but that didn't seem to happen
>> anyway...
>
> Do another volley of the full set, or in-reply-to to just replace the
> patch that needs to be respun (but some people don't like that).
>
> When resending just make sure you're picking up all the acks/r-bs you
> have already.
Right, I always try to do that. One Ack that I did not include in v2
was the one you had on v1 24/24 (i.e. this patch). The reason I did
not add your Ack for v2 even on the patch where it obviously applied
was that I didn't know if you'd barf on the odev name.
But it was (and still is) a bit unclear if that was on Ack on the
last patch only, or if it was for the whole series? I think it might
have been for the whole series, but I'm not sure and I hate to be a
presumptuous idiot...
Cheers,
Peter
> -Daniel
>> Cheers,
>> Peter
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Anyway:
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Andrzej
>>>>>
>>>>>> * @funcs: control functions
>>>>>> * @driver_private: pointer to the bridge driver's internal context
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> @@ -271,6 +272,7 @@ struct drm_bridge {
>>>>>> struct drm_bridge *next;
>>>>>> struct list_head list;
>>>>>> const struct drm_bridge_timings *timings;
>>>>>> + struct device_link *link;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> const struct drm_bridge_funcs *funcs;
>>>>>> void *driver_private;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dri-devel mailing list
>> dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
