On Tuesday, 26 November 2019 14:35:34 GMT Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 01:16:26PM +, Mihail Atanassov wrote:
> > From: Russell King
> >
> > Bridge devices have been a potential for kernel oops as their lifetime
> > is independent of the DRM device that they are bound to.
On Tuesday, 26 November 2019 14:35:34 GMT Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 01:16:26PM +, Mihail Atanassov wrote:
> > From: Russell King
> >
> > Bridge devices have been a potential for kernel oops as their lifetime
> > is independent of the DRM device that they are bound to.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 01:16:26PM +, Mihail Atanassov wrote:
> From: Russell King
>
> Bridge devices have been a potential for kernel oops as their lifetime
> is independent of the DRM device that they are bound to. Hence, if a
> bridge device is unbound while the parent DRM device is
From: Russell King
Bridge devices have been a potential for kernel oops as their lifetime
is independent of the DRM device that they are bound to. Hence, if a
bridge device is unbound while the parent DRM device is using them, the
parent happily continues to use the bridge device, calling the
