On Wed 12 Feb 2025 at 08:38, Doug Anderson [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi,

On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 9:28 AM Jerome Brunet [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

The auxiliary device creation of this driver is simple enough to
use the available auxiliary device creation helper.

Use it and remove some boilerplate code.

Signed-off-by: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 84 +++++++++--------------------------
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-)

Thanks for creating the helpers and getting rid of some boilerplate!
This conflicts with commit 574f5ee2c85a ("drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86:
Fix multiple instances") which is in drm-next, though. Please resolve.

Noted. this is based on v6.14-rc1 ATM

Since nothing here is urgent, I would assume patch #1 would land and
then we'd just wait until it made it to mainline before landing the
other patches in their respective trees?

That would simplest way to handle it I think. No rush.
I'll rebase when the time comes.

quoted

-static int ti_sn65dsi86_add_aux_device(struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata,
-                                      struct auxiliary_device **aux_out,
-                                      const char *name)
-{
-       struct device *dev = pdata->dev;
-       struct auxiliary_device *aux;
-       int ret;
-
-       aux = kzalloc(sizeof(*aux), GFP_KERNEL);
-       if (!aux)
-               return -ENOMEM;
-
-       aux->name = name;
-       aux->dev.parent = dev;
-       aux->dev.release = ti_sn65dsi86_aux_device_release;
-       device_set_of_node_from_dev(&aux->dev, dev);
-       ret = auxiliary_device_init(aux);
-       if (ret) {
-               kfree(aux);
-               return ret;
-       }
-       ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, ti_sn65dsi86_uninit_aux, aux);
-       if (ret)
-               return ret;
-
-       ret = auxiliary_device_add(aux);
-       if (ret)
-               return ret;
-       ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, ti_sn65dsi86_delete_aux, aux);
-       if (!ret)
-               *aux_out = aux;

I notice that your new code has one fewer devm_add_action_or_reset()
than the code here which you're replacing. That means it needs to call
"uninit" explicitly in one extra place.

... but it needs one memory allocation less ;)

It still seems clean enough,
though, so I don't have any real objections to the way you're doing it
there. ;-)

Both ways are valid indeed. Just a matter of personal taste I guess.

-Doug

-- 
Jerome