W dniu 30.03.2021 o 04:53, Douglas Anderson pisze:
> The register() / attach() for MIPI happen in the bridge's
> attach(). That means that the inverse belongs in the bridge's
> detach().
As I commented in previous patch, it would be better to fix mipi/bridge
registration order in host and this driver.
Have you considered this?
Regards
Andrzej
>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <diand...@chromium.org>
> ---
>
> (no changes since v1)
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 15 +++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> index c006678c9921..e8e523b3a16b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> @@ -437,7 +437,15 @@ static int ti_sn_bridge_attach(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
>
> static void ti_sn_bridge_detach(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
> {
> - drm_dp_aux_unregister(&bridge_to_ti_sn_bridge(bridge)->aux);
> + struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata = bridge_to_ti_sn_bridge(bridge);
> +
> +
> + if (pdata->dsi) {
> + mipi_dsi_detach(pdata->dsi);
> + mipi_dsi_device_unregister(pdata->dsi);
> + }
> +
> + drm_dp_aux_unregister(&pdata->aux);
> }
>
> static void ti_sn_bridge_disable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
> @@ -1315,11 +1323,6 @@ static int ti_sn_bridge_remove(struct i2c_client
> *client)
> if (!pdata)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - if (pdata->dsi) {
> - mipi_dsi_detach(pdata->dsi);
> - mipi_dsi_device_unregister(pdata->dsi);
> - }
> -
> kfree(pdata->edid);
>
> ti_sn_debugfs_remove(pdata);
