On Thu, Feb 05, 2026 at 09:52:04AM +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote: > Hello Liu,
Hello Luca, > > On Wed Feb 4, 2026 at 7:27 AM CET, Liu Ying wrote: >> Hi Luca, >> >> On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 11:35:25AM +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote: >>> This driver obtains a bridge pointer from of_drm_find_bridge() in the probe >>> function and stores it until driver removal. of_drm_find_bridge() is >>> deprecated. Move to of_drm_find_and_get_bridge() for the bridge to be >>> refcounted and use bridge->next_bridge to put the reference on >>> deallocation. >>> >>> To keep the code as simple and reliable as possible, get a reference for >>> each pointer that stores a drm_bridge address when it is stored and release >>> it when the pointer is overwritten or goes out of scope. Also remove the >>> intermediate selected_bridge variable to reduce the refcounted variables in >>> the function. The involved pointers are: >>> >>> * next_bridge loop-local variable: >>> - get reference by of_drm_find_and_get_bridge() >>> - put reference at the end of the loop iteration (__free) >>> >>> * pl->bridge.next_bridge, tied to struct imx8qxp_pixel_link lifetime: >>> - get reference when assigned (by copy from next_bridge) >>> - put reference before reassignment if reassignment happens >>> - put reference when the struct imx8qxp_pixel_link embedding the >>> struct drm_bridge is destroyed (struct drm_bridge::next_bridge) >>> >>> Additionally, split the somewhat complex if() for readability. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <[email protected]> >>> >>> --- >>> >>> Changes in v5: >>> - rewrite commit message after Liu's review to clarify the per-pointer >>> get/put idea >>> - split the if()s involved in selcting the bridge >>> - remove intermediate selected_bridge pointer >>> - removed Maxime's R-by, patch changed >>> --- >>> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/imx/imx8qxp-pixel-link.c | 17 ++++++++++------- >>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/imx/imx8qxp-pixel-link.c >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/imx/imx8qxp-pixel-link.c >>> index 91e4f4d55469..e29e099b893a 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/imx/imx8qxp-pixel-link.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/imx/imx8qxp-pixel-link.c >>> @@ -23,7 +23,6 @@ >>> >>> struct imx8qxp_pixel_link { >>> struct drm_bridge bridge; >>> - struct drm_bridge *next_bridge; >>> struct device *dev; >>> struct imx_sc_ipc *ipc_handle; >>> u8 stream_id; >>> @@ -140,7 +139,7 @@ static int imx8qxp_pixel_link_bridge_attach(struct >>> drm_bridge *bridge, >>> } >>> >>> return drm_bridge_attach(encoder, >>> - pl->next_bridge, bridge, >>> + pl->bridge.next_bridge, bridge, >>> DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR); >>> } >>> >>> @@ -260,7 +259,6 @@ static int imx8qxp_pixel_link_find_next_bridge(struct >>> imx8qxp_pixel_link *pl) >>> { >>> struct device_node *np = pl->dev->of_node; >>> struct device_node *port; >>> - struct drm_bridge *selected_bridge = NULL; >>> u32 port_id; >>> bool found_port = false; >>> int reg; >>> @@ -297,7 +295,8 @@ static int imx8qxp_pixel_link_find_next_bridge(struct >>> imx8qxp_pixel_link *pl) >>> continue; >>> } >>> >>> - struct drm_bridge *next_bridge = of_drm_find_bridge(remote); >>> + struct drm_bridge *next_bridge __free(drm_bridge_put) = >>> + of_drm_find_and_get_bridge(remote); >>> if (!next_bridge) >>> return -EPROBE_DEFER; >>> >>> @@ -305,12 +304,16 @@ static int imx8qxp_pixel_link_find_next_bridge(struct >>> imx8qxp_pixel_link *pl) >>> * Select the next bridge with companion PXL2DPI if >>> * present, otherwise default to the first bridge >>> */ >>> - if (!selected_bridge || of_property_present(remote, >>> "fsl,companion-pxl2dpi")) >>> - selected_bridge = next_bridge; >>> + if (!pl->bridge.next_bridge) >>> + pl->bridge.next_bridge = drm_bridge_get(next_bridge); >>> + >>> + if (of_property_present(remote, "fsl,companion-pxl2dpi")) { >>> + drm_bridge_put(pl->bridge.next_bridge); >>> + pl->bridge.next_bridge = drm_bridge_get(next_bridge); >>> + } >> >> Can you drop the intermediate next_bridge variable to simplify the code? >> >> -8<- >> if (!pl->bridge.next_bridge) { >> pl->bridge.next_bridge = of_drm_find_and_get_bridge(remote); >> if (!pl->bridge.next_bridge) >> return -EPROBE_DEFER; >> } >> >> if (of_property_present(remote, "fsl,companion-pxl2dpi")) { >> drm_bridge_put(pl->bridge.next_bridge); >> pl->bridge.next_bridge = of_drm_find_and_get_bridge(remote); >> if (!pl->bridge.next_bridge) >> return -EPROBE_DEFER; >> } >> -8<- > > Potentially calling of_drm_find_and_get_bridge() twice on the same node, > with a put in the middle, looks poorly readable to me, even though it still > looks correct code. > > However I think we can do even better with an 'else if': > > if (!pl->bridge.next_bridge) { > pl->bridge.next_bridge = of_drm_find_and_get_bridge(remote); > if (!pl->bridge.next_bridge) > return -EPROBE_DEFER; > } else if (of_property_present(remote, "fsl,companion-pxl2dpi")) { <=== > drm_bridge_put(pl->bridge.next_bridge); > pl->bridge.next_bridge = of_drm_find_and_get_bridge(remote); > if (!pl->bridge.next_bridge) > return -EPROBE_DEFER; > } > > Looks OK? Both are fine to me. TBH, I feel my version with two 'if's is a bit easier to read. But, I'd say up to you. > > Luca > > -- > Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin > Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering > https://bootlin.com/ -- Regards, Liu Ying
