Hello Chaoyi,
On Tue Mar 3, 2026 at 1:44 AM CET, Chaoyi Chen wrote:
>>> +static int cdn_dp_parse_next_bridge_dt(struct cdn_dp_device *dp)
>>> +{
>>> + struct device_node *np = dp->dev->of_node;
>>> + struct device_node *port __free(device_node) =
>>> of_graph_get_port_by_id(np, 1);
>>> + struct drm_bridge *bridge;
>>> + int count = 0;
>>> + int ret = 0;
>>> + int i;
>>> +
>>> + /* If device use extcon, do not use hpd bridge */
>>> + for (i = 0; i < dp->ports; i++) {
>>> + if (dp->port[i]->extcon) {
>>> + dp->bridge_count = 1;
>>> + return 0;
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /* One endpoint may correspond to one next bridge. */
>>> + for_each_of_graph_port_endpoint(port, dp_ep) {
>>> + struct device_node *next_bridge_node __free(device_node) =
>>> + of_graph_get_remote_port_parent(dp_ep);
>>> +
>>> + bridge = of_drm_find_bridge(next_bridge_node);
>>> + if (!bridge) {
>>> + ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
>>> + goto out;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + drm_bridge_get(bridge);
>>> + dp->next_bridge_valid = true;
>>> + dp->next_bridge_list[count] = bridge;
>>
>> Correct, but the drm_bridge_get() slightly far away from the assignement is
>> a bit misleading. I hadn't seen it initially so I suspected a missing get.
>>
>> I suggest to do it in a single statement, for clarity:
>>
>> dp->next_bridge_list[count] = bridgedrm_bridge_get(bridge);
>>
>
> I think the bridgedrm_bridge_get here seems to be a typo?
Oops, of course! :)
As you probably guessed, I was meaning:
dp->next_bridge_list[count] = drm_bridge_get(bridge);
> Anyway, thank you very much for your efforts on the bridge lifetime.
> I will fix this in the next version :)
Thanks!
Luca
--
Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
