[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <95c36782-7eaf-2224-bb52-cff0a53d98d8@thinci.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 12:39:27 +0000
From: Matt Redfearn <matt.redfearn@...nci.com>
To: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>,
Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Philippe Cornu <philippe.cornu@...com>
CC: "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Matthew Redfearn <matthew.redfearn@...nci.com>,
Nickey Yang <nickey.yang@...k-chips.com>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Archit Taneja <architt@...eaurora.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge/synopsys: dsi: Don't blindly call post_disable
Hi Andrzej,
On 25/04/2019 13:13, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> On 24.04.2019 16:22, Matt Redfearn wrote:
>> The DRM documentation states that post_disable is an optional callback.
>> As such an implementing device may not populate it. To avoid panicing
>> the kernel by calling a NULL function pointer, we should NULL check it
>> before blindy calling it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Matt Redfearn <matt.redfearn@...nci.com>
>
>> ---
>>
>> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsys/dw-mipi-dsi.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsys/dw-mipi-dsi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsys/dw-mipi-dsi.c
>> index 38e88071363..0ee440216b8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsys/dw-mipi-dsi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsys/dw-mipi-dsi.c
>> @@ -805,7 +805,8 @@ static void dw_mipi_dsi_bridge_post_disable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
>> * This needs to be fixed in the drm_bridge framework and the API
>> * needs to be updated to manage our own call chains...
>> */
>> - dsi->panel_bridge->funcs->post_disable(dsi->panel_bridge);
>> + if (dsi->panel_bridge->funcs->post_disable)
>> + dsi->panel_bridge->funcs->post_disable(dsi->panel_bridge);
>>
>
> Why not drm_bridge_post_disable ?
Ah - that seems like a nicer fix! Do you think the comment above
describing why this function pointer is called directly can be removed
as well if we go this route?
If someone calls drm_bridge_post_disable() on the Synposys DSI
drm_bridge it will go on to call post_disable on all other bridges in
the chain, in addition to us calling them here. Is it an issue to call
it multiple times?
Thanks,
Matt
>
>
> Regards
>
> Andrzej
>
>
>> if (dsi->slave) {
>> dw_mipi_dsi_disable(dsi->slave);
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists