Hi Maxime, On Tue Dec 16, 2025 at 2:49 PM CET, Maxime Ripard wrote: [...] >> Not sure why, but it's taking a while before I grasp your ideas about this >> series and meld them with mine. I hopefully got a clear POV now, so based >> on it my plan is to rework this series to: >> >> * keep drm_of_find_bridge() but renamed to of_drm_get_bridge(), and keep >> patches 1-5 (with the changes suggested by you and Louis, nothing big >> and all already sent in v2) > > I don't think we should use that name, but on principle, yes.
OK about the rename. I just had sent this email before you requested the rename. v3 is in the works with the of_drm_find_and_get_bridge() name. >> * not add devm_drm_of_find_bridge() > > Yep. > >> * add next_bridge pointer to struct drm_bridge and call >> drm_bridge_put(bridge->next_bridge) in __drm_bridge_free, document it > > We don't have to at this point, you can add next_bridge to the > drm_bridge pointer if you want, but I don't consider it a prerequisite. > If we don't we would have to create drm_bridge_funcs->destroy > implemnentations to give up the driver pointer reference though. Your > call. There's a destroy finc already, so I'm adding the next_bridge pointer in v3 along with some driver conversions, including one where the destroy hook is needed. >> * convert patches 7-26 to use bridge->next_bridge where applicable, >> or to do something different when needed > > Depending on your decision above, we'd need to either convert them to > use drm_bridge->next_bridge or create a destroy hook for them. Either > way is fine for me. > >> * maybe remove part of patches 7-26 just to reduce spam and rework effort >> in case of further iterations, to send them separately once the approach >> is accepted >> >> Does it look OK? Cool, thanks for acking. v3 is just a testing round away from being sent. Luca -- Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
