Re: [PATCH v2] drm/bridge: nwl-dsi: switch to devm_drm_of_get_bridge

[Robert Foss <robert.foss@linaro.org>]

On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 at 10:25, Liu Ying <victor.liu@oss.nxp.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2022-03-17 at 18:58 +0100, José Expósito wrote:
> > The function "drm_of_find_panel_or_bridge" has been deprecated in
> > favor of "devm_drm_of_get_bridge".
> >
> > Switch to the new function and reduce boilerplate.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: José Expósito <jose.exposito89@gmail.com>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > v2: (Thanks to Liu Ying)
> >
> >  - Rebase on top of drm-misc-next
> >  - Remove drm_of_panel_bridge_remove
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/nwl-dsi.c | 23 ++++-------------------
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/nwl-dsi.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/nwl-dsi.c
> > index e34fb09b90b9..de62e3fc6a59 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/nwl-dsi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/nwl-dsi.c
> > @@ -912,19 +912,11 @@ static int nwl_dsi_bridge_attach(struct
> > drm_bridge *bridge,
> >  {
> >       struct nwl_dsi *dsi = bridge_to_dsi(bridge);
> >       struct drm_bridge *panel_bridge;
> > -     struct drm_panel *panel;
> > -     int ret;
> > -
> > -     ret = drm_of_find_panel_or_bridge(dsi->dev->of_node, 1, 0,
> > &panel,
> > -                                       &panel_bridge);
> > -     if (ret)
> > -             return ret;
> >
> > -     if (panel) {
> > -             panel_bridge = drm_panel_bridge_add(panel);
> > -             if (IS_ERR(panel_bridge))
> > -                     return PTR_ERR(panel_bridge);
> > -     }
> > +     panel_bridge = devm_drm_of_get_bridge(dsi->dev, dsi->dev-
> > >of_node,
> > +                                           1, 0);
> > +     if (IS_ERR(panel_bridge))
> > +             return PTR_ERR(panel_bridge);
> >
> >       if (!panel_bridge)
> >               return -EPROBE_DEFER;
>
> I don't think panel_bridge can be NULL here, so this check can be
> removed.  However, even if this patch is not applied, the check is not
> necessary.  I think it can be removed with a separate patch.

José, do you mind clearing up if this check is needed, and then
spinning a v3 removing this snippet if it is needed?

Rob.