Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) 
to consider:
- [Medium] The patch replaces direct access to `phy->attrs.bus_width` with a 
consumer API to prepare for `struct phy` becoming opaque, but fails to replace 
the direct access to `phy->attrs.max_link_rate` just a few lines below.
--

--- Patch [2]: [PATCH v9 2/2] drm: bridge: cdns-mhdp8546: use consumer API for 
getting PHY bus width ---
commit ecf7ebc5abfe88e7d5e12ae439973da7de3f9c25
Author: Vladimir Oltean <[email protected]>

drm: bridge: cdns-mhdp8546: use consumer API for getting PHY bus width

This commit updates the driver to use the phy_get_bus_width() API instead
of directly accessing phy->attrs.bus_width. This is being done because the
definition of struct phy will soon be hidden from consumers.

> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/cadence/cdns-mhdp8546-core.c 
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/cadence/cdns-mhdp8546-core.c
> index c99151fdaf03d..796c64cb18e77 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/cadence/cdns-mhdp8546-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/cadence/cdns-mhdp8546-core.c
> @@ -1300,7 +1300,7 @@ static void cdns_mhdp_fill_host_caps(struct 
> cdns_mhdp_device *mhdp)
>  
>       /* Get source capabilities based on PHY attributes */
>  
> -     mhdp->host.lanes_cnt = mhdp->phy->attrs.bus_width;
> +     mhdp->host.lanes_cnt = phy_get_bus_width(mhdp->phy);
>       if (!mhdp->host.lanes_cnt)
>               mhdp->host.lanes_cnt = 4;
>  

[Severity: Medium]
Since the goal is to stop accessing the phy attributes directly because struct
phy will be hidden, does this also need to replace the access to max_link_rate
just a few lines down?

In cdns_mhdp_fill_host_caps():

        mhdp->host.lanes_cnt = phy_get_bus_width(mhdp->phy);
        if (!mhdp->host.lanes_cnt)
                mhdp->host.lanes_cnt = 4;

        link_rate = mhdp->phy->attrs.max_link_rate;

If struct phy becomes opaque, won't this remaining direct access to
max_link_rate still cause a build failure?

-- 
Sashiko AI review ยท 
https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=2

Reply via email to