[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <efeb3583-dd0c-4e91-bbfc-54b04644f2c2@nxp.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 11:54:00 +0800
From: Liu Ying <victor.liu@....com>
To: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@...tlin.com>,
Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>,
Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>, Robert Foss <rfoss@...nel.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>, Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>
Cc: Hui Pu <Hui.Pu@...ealthcare.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] drm/bridge: imx8qxp-pixel-link: get/put the next
bridge
On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 07:18:47PM +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> Hello Liu,
Hello Luca,
>
> On Mon Jan 26, 2026 at 9:06 AM CET, Liu Ying wrote:
>> Hi Luca,
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 10:56:29AM +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
>>> This driver obtains a bridge pointer from of_drm_find_bridge() in the probe
>>> function and stores it until driver removal. of_drm_find_bridge() is
>>> deprecated. Move to of_drm_find_and_get_bridge() for the bridge to be
>>> refcounted and use bridge->next_bridge to put the reference on
>>> deallocation.
>>>
>>> This needs to be handled in various steps:
>>>
>>> * the bridge returned of_drm_get_bridge() is stored in the local temporary
>>> variable next_bridge whose scope is the for loop, so a cleanup action is
>>> enough
>>> * the value of next_bridge is copied into selected_bridge, potentially
>>> more than once, so a cleanup action at function scope plus a
>>> drm_bridge_put() in case of reassignment are enough
>>> * on successful return selected_bridge is stored in bridge->next_bridge,
>>> which ensures it is put when the bridge is deallocated
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@...tlin.com>
>
> Thanks for having found the time to go into the details and provide a
> careful review of this series!
>
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/imx/imx8qxp-pixel-link.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/imx/imx8qxp-pixel-link.c
>>> @@ -23,7 +23,6 @@
>>>
>>> struct imx8qxp_pixel_link {
>>> struct drm_bridge bridge;
>>> - struct drm_bridge *next_bridge;
>>> struct device *dev;
>>> struct imx_sc_ipc *ipc_handle;
>>> u8 stream_id;
>>> @@ -140,7 +139,7 @@ static int imx8qxp_pixel_link_bridge_attach(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
>>> }
>>>
>>> return drm_bridge_attach(encoder,
>>> - pl->next_bridge, bridge,
>>> + pl->bridge.next_bridge, bridge,
>>> DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR);
>>> }
>>>
>>> @@ -260,7 +259,7 @@ static int imx8qxp_pixel_link_find_next_bridge(struct imx8qxp_pixel_link *pl)
>>> {
>>> struct device_node *np = pl->dev->of_node;
>>> struct device_node *port;
>>> - struct drm_bridge *selected_bridge = NULL;
>>> + struct drm_bridge *selected_bridge __free(drm_bridge_put) = NULL;
>>> u32 port_id;
>>> bool found_port = false;
>>> int reg;
>>> @@ -297,7 +296,8 @@ static int imx8qxp_pixel_link_find_next_bridge(struct imx8qxp_pixel_link *pl)
>>> continue;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - struct drm_bridge *next_bridge = of_drm_find_bridge(remote);
>>> + struct drm_bridge *next_bridge __free(drm_bridge_put) =
>>> + of_drm_find_and_get_bridge(remote);
>>> if (!next_bridge)
>>> return -EPROBE_DEFER;
>>>
>>> @@ -305,12 +305,14 @@ static int imx8qxp_pixel_link_find_next_bridge(struct imx8qxp_pixel_link *pl)
>>> * Select the next bridge with companion PXL2DPI if
>>> * present, otherwise default to the first bridge
>>> */
>>> - if (!selected_bridge || of_property_present(remote, "fsl,companion-pxl2dpi"))
>>> - selected_bridge = next_bridge;
>>> + if (!selected_bridge || of_property_present(remote, "fsl,companion-pxl2dpi")) {
>>> + drm_bridge_put(selected_bridge);
>>> + selected_bridge = drm_bridge_get(next_bridge);
>>
>> Considering selecting the first bridge without the companion pxl2dpi,
>> there would be a superfluous refcount for the selected bridge:
>>
>> 1) of_drm_find_and_get_bridge: refcount = 1
>> 2) drm_bridge_put: noop, since selected_bridge is NULL, refcount = 1
>> 3) drm_bridge_get: refcount = 2
>> 4) drm_bridge_put(__free): refcount = 1
>> 5) drm_bridge_get: for the pl->bridge.next_bridge, refcount = 2
>
> Here you are missing one put. There are two drm_bridge_put(__free), one for
> next_bridge and one for selected_bridge. So your list should rather be:
>
> 1) next_bridge = of_drm_find_and_get_bridge: refcount = 1
> 2) drm_bridge_put(selected_bridge): noop, since selected_bridge is NULL, refcount = 1
> 3) selected_bridge = drm_bridge_get: refcount = 2
> 4) drm_bridge_put(next_bridge) [__free at loop scope end]: refcount = 1
> 5) pl->bridge.next_bridge = drm_bridge_get(), refcount = 2
> 6) drm_bridge_put(selected_bridge) [__free at function scope end]: refcount = 1
Ah, right, I did miss this last put because selected_bridge is declared with
__free a bit far away from the loop at the very beginning of
imx8qxp_pixel_link_find_next_bridge() - that's my problem I guess, but I'm
not even sure if I'll fall into this same pitfall again after a while, which
makes the driver difficult to maintain.
Also, it seems that the refcount dance(back and forth bewteen 1 and 2) is not
something straightforward for driver readers to follow.
>
> The idea is that for each pointer (which is a reference) we get a reference
> (refcount++) when the pointer is set and put the reference when that same
> pointer goes out of scope or is reset to NULL. "the pointer is set" can be
> either of_drm_find_and_get_bridge() or an assignment, as each of these
> operations creates another reference (pointer) to the same bridge.
>
> Does it look correct?
Lol, I guess I need more coffee to read your logic of refcount get/put.
>
>> I think the below snippet would be the right thing to do:
>> -8<-
>> {
>> ...
>>
>> struct drm_bridge *next_bridge __free(drm_bridge_put) =
>> of_drm_find_and_get_bridge(remote);
>> if (!next_bridge)
>> return -EPROBE_DEFER;
>>
>> /*
>> * Select the next bridge with companion PXL2DPI if
>> * present, otherwise default to the first bridge
>> */
>> if (!selected_bridge)
>> selected_bridge = drm_bridge_get(next_bridge);
>>
>> if (of_property_present(remote, "fsl,companion-pxl2dpi")) {
>> if (selected_bridge)
>> drm_bridge_put(selected_bridge);
>>
>> selected_bridge = drm_bridge_get(next_bridge);
>> }
>> }
>
> Your version of the code looks OK as well so far, but totally equivalent to
> what my patch proposes.
>
> Do you think splitting the if() into two if()s is clearer? Would you like
> me to change this?
Yes, please. Two if()s are easier for me to read. Also I think the
"if (selected_bridge)" before "drm_bridge_put(selected_bridge)" improves
readability, though I know drm_bridge_put() checks input parameter bridge
for now.
>
>> ...
>> pl->bridge.next_bridge = selected_bridge;
>
> Based on the logic above the drm_bridge_get() is still needed here (both
> with the single if() or the split if()s) because at function exit the
> selected_bridge reference will be put.
Can the refcount dance be simplified a bit by dropping the put at
function exit? This snippet is what I'd propose if not too scary:
-8<-
struct drm_bridge *selected_bridge = NULL;
...
{
...
struct drm_bridge *next_bridge __free(drm_bridge_put) =
of_drm_find_and_get_bridge(remote);
if (!next_bridge)
return -EPROBE_DEFER;
/*
* Select the next bridge with companion PXL2DPI if
* present, otherwise default to the first bridge
*/
if (!selected_bridge)
selected_bridge = drm_bridge_get(next_bridge);
if (of_property_present(remote, "fsl,companion-pxl2dpi")) {
if (selected_bridge)
drm_bridge_put(selected_bridge);
selected_bridge = drm_bridge_get(next_bridge);
}
}
...
pl->bridge.next_bridge = selected_bridge;
-8<-
>
> Luca
>
> --
> Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> https://bootlin.com/
--
Regards,
Liu Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists