Re: [RFC PATCH 03/11] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Unregister AUX adapter in remove()

[Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>]

Hi,

On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 8:02 PM Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
>
> The AUX adapter registered in probe() need to be unregistered in
> remove(). Do so.
>
> Fixes: b814ec6d4535 ("drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Implement AUX channel")
> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> index da78a12e58b5..c45420a50e73 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> @@ -1307,6 +1307,9 @@ static int ti_sn_bridge_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
>                 return -EINVAL;
>
>         kfree(pdata->edid);
> +
> +       drm_dp_aux_unregister(&pdata->aux);
> +
>         ti_sn_debugfs_remove(pdata);
>
>         of_node_put(pdata->host_node);

Good catch. One question, though. I know DRM sometimes has different
conventions than the rest of the kernel, but I always look for the
"remove" to be backwards of probe. That means that your code (and
probably most of the remove function) should come _after_ the
drm_bridge_remove(), right?  ...since drm_bridge_add() was the last
thing in probe then drm_bridge_remove() should be the first thing in
remove?


-Doug
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel