Hi Maxime, On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 13:15:30 +0200 Maxime Ripard <mrip...@kernel.org> wrote:
> > @@ -197,15 +197,22 @@ > > * driver. > > */ > > > > +/* Protect bridge_list and bridge_removed_list */ > > static DEFINE_MUTEX(bridge_lock); > > static LIST_HEAD(bridge_list); > > +static LIST_HEAD(bridge_removed_list); > > I'm not super fond of "removed" here, it's ambiguous, especially since > the bridge wouldn't be considered as removed after the last put. > > lingering maybe? Sure, will rename. > > @@ -288,10 +296,13 @@ void *__devm_drm_bridge_alloc(struct device *dev, > > size_t size, size_t offset, > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(__devm_drm_bridge_alloc); > > > > /** > > - * drm_bridge_add - add the given bridge to the global bridge list > > + * drm_bridge_add - publish a bridge > > * > > * @bridge: bridge control structure > > * > > + * Add the given bridge to the global list of "published" bridges, where > > + * they can be found by users via of_drm_find_bridge(). > > It's quite a change in semantics, at least in the doc. I believe it > should be a separate patch, since it's really more about updating the > drm_bridge_add / drm_bridge_remove doc than collecting the > removed-but-not-freed bridges. > > Also, I'm not sure if it's more obvious here. The quotes around publish > kind of it to that too. Maybe using register / registration would make > it more obvious? OK, I'll reword using register/registration and definitely move to a separate patch. Thanks for reviewing. Luca -- Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
