Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] drm/i2c: tda998x: register as a drm bridge

From: Peter Rosin
Date: Fri Apr 20 2018 - 09:28:59 EST

On 2018-04-20 12:24, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 01:06:49PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>> Thank you for the patch.
>> On Thursday, 19 April 2018 19:27:51 EEST Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> This makes this driver work with all(?) drivers that are not
>>> componentized and instead expect to connect to a panel/bridge. That
>>> said, the only one tested is atmel_hlcdc.
>>> This hooks the relevant work function previously called by the encoder
>>> and the component also to the bridge, since the encoder goes away when
>>> connecting to the bridge interface of the driver and the equivalent of
>>> bind/unbind of the component is handled by bridge attach/detach.
>>> The lifetime requirements of a bridge and a component are slightly
>>> different, which is the reason for struct tda998x_bridge.
>> Couldn't you move the allocation and initialization (tda998x_create) of the
>> tda998x_priv structure to probe time ? I think you wouldn't need a separate
>> structure in that case. Unless I'm mistaken there would be an added benefit of
>> separating component and bridge initialization, resulting in the encoder not
>> being initialized at all if the component isn't used. You wouldn't need to add
>> a local_encoder parameter to the tda998x_init() function.
> No, I don't like that idea one bit, as I've stated in the past about the
> component API. The same (probably) goes for the bridge stuff too.
> Consider the following:
> Your DRM system is initialised. You then remove a module, which results
> in the DRM system being torn down. You re-insert the module (eg, having
> made a change to it). The DRM system is then re-initialised.
> At this point, what is the state of variables such as priv->is_on if
> you allocate the structure at probe time?
> What about all the other variables in the driver private structure - are
> you sure that the driver can cope with random values from the previous
> "usage" remaining there?
> At the moment, this isn't a concern for the driver because we
> dev_kzalloc() the structure in the bind callback. Move that to the
> probe function, and the structure is no longer re-initialised each
> time, and so it retains the previous state. The driver is not setup
> to cope with that.
> So, to work around that, you would need to reinitialise _everything_
> in the structure that the driver requires, which IMHO is a very
> open to bugs (eg, if a member is missed, or added without the
> necessary re-initialisation), _especially_ when this is not a path
> that will get regular testing.
> If you want to do this for a subset of data, it would be much better
> to separate them into independent structures (maybe one embedded into
> the other) so that this problem can not occur. That way, a subset
> of the data can be memset() when bound to the rest of the DRM system
> ensuring a consistent driver state and still achieve what you're
> suggesting.

This was the exact reason I added struct tda998x_bridge. It seemed
very risky to move the tda998x_create call (or some of its meat) to
the probe function. Even if that could be done I think it should
definitely be a separate patch.