Hi Louis,
On Wed Nov 19, 2025 at 3:33 PM CET, Louis Chauvet wrote:
>
>
> On 11/19/25 13:05, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
>> Several drivers (about 20) follow the same pattern:
>>
>> 1. get a pointer to a bridge (typically the next bridge in the chain) by
>> calling of_drm_find_bridge()
>> 2. store the returned pointer in the private driver data, keep it until
>> driver .remove
>> 3. dereference the pointer at attach time and possibly at other times
>>
>> of_drm_find_bridge() is now deprecated because it does not increment the
>> refcount and should be replaced with drm_of_find_bridge() +
>> drm_bridge_put().
>>
>> However some of those drivers have a complex code flow and adding a
>> drm_bridge_put() call in all the appropriate locations is error-prone,
>> leads to ugly and more complex code, and can lead to errors over time with
>> code flow changes.
>>
>> To handle all those drivers in a straightforward way, add a devm variant of
>> drm_of_find_bridge() that adds a devm action to invoke drm_bridge_put()
>> when the said driver is removed. This allows all those drivers to put the
>> reference automatically and safely with a one line change:
>>
>> - priv->next_bridge = of_drm_find_bridge(remote_np);
>> + priv->next_bridge = devm_drm_of_find_bridge(dev, remote_np);
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> include/drm/drm_bridge.h | 5 +++++
>> 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
>> index 09ad825f9cb8..c7baafbe5695 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
>> @@ -1446,6 +1446,36 @@ struct drm_bridge *drm_of_find_bridge(struct
>> device_node *np)
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_of_find_bridge);
>>
>> +/**
>> + * devm_drm_of_find_bridge - find the bridge corresponding to the device
>> + * node in the global bridge list and add a devm
>> + * action to put it
>> + *
>> + * @dev: device requesting the bridge
>> + * @np: device node
>> + *
>> + * On success the returned bridge refcount is incremented, and a devm
>> + * action is added to call drm_bridge_put() when @dev is removed. So the
>> + * caller does not have to put the returned bridge explicitly.
>> + *
>> + * RETURNS:
>> + * drm_bridge control struct on success, NULL on failure
>
> I am not sure for the "NULL on failure", you return ERR_PTR(err), which
> is probably not NULL but an error code.
Indeed.
Apologies for the mess in this series: it was adapted from an old one using
a different approach, so I had to adapt lots of details, and missed a few
along the way. :(
About the value to return, maybe it's better to use the same semantics as
drm_of_find_bridge(), i.e. NULL on error. I don't think a caller would have
anything clever to do with an error return value other tan bailing out. And
the only error path for devm_add_action_or_reset() is on a small
allocation, so it basically cannot happen.
>> +struct drm_bridge *devm_drm_of_find_bridge(struct device *dev, struct
>> device_node *np)
>> +{
>> + struct drm_bridge *bridge = drm_of_find_bridge(np);
>> +
>> + if (bridge) {
>> + int err = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, drm_bridge_put_void,
>> bridge);
>> +
>> + if (err)
>> + return ERR_PTR(err);
>> + }
So this would become:
if (bridge) {
if (devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, drm_bridge_put_void, bridge))
return NULL;
}
>> +
>> + return bridge;
>> +}
Luca
--
Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
