Re: [PATCH] drm: bridge: thc63lvd1024: Switch to use of_graph_get_remote_node()

[Sui Jingfeng]

Hi,


On 2024/3/18 23:57, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:53:11PM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> > On 2024/3/18 23:33, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 01:28:00AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> > > > To reduce boilerplate, use of_graph_get_remote_node() helper instead of
> > > > the hand-rolling code.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Sui Jingfeng <sui.jingfeng@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >    drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/thc63lvd1024.c | 24 +++---------------------
> > > >    1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/thc63lvd1024.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/thc63lvd1024.c
> > > > index d4c1a601bbb5..5f99f9724081 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/thc63lvd1024.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/thc63lvd1024.c
> > > > @@ -123,28 +123,10 @@ static int thc63_parse_dt(struct thc63_dev *thc63)
> > > >    	struct device_node *endpoint;
> > > >    	struct device_node *remote;
> > > >    
> > > > -	endpoint = of_graph_get_endpoint_by_regs(thc63->dev->of_node,
> > > > -						 THC63_RGB_OUT0, -1);
> > > > -	if (!endpoint) {
> > > > -		dev_err(thc63->dev, "Missing endpoint in port@%u\n",
> > > > -			THC63_RGB_OUT0);
> > > > -		return -ENODEV;
> > > > -	}
> > > > -
> > > > -	remote = of_graph_get_remote_port_parent(endpoint);
> > > > -	of_node_put(endpoint);
> > > > -	if (!remote) {
> > > > -		dev_err(thc63->dev, "Endpoint in port@%u unconnected\n",
> > > > -			THC63_RGB_OUT0);
> > > > +	remote = of_graph_get_remote_node(thc63->dev->of_node,
> > > > +					  THC63_RGB_OUT0, -1);
> > > > +	if (!remote)
> > > The old logic is equivalent to of_graph_get_remote_node(), but now the
> > > driver will fail probing without an error message. That's not very nice
> > > as it leads to difficult to debug problems. I would keep one dev_err()
> > > here:
> > >
> > > 		dev_err(thc63->dev, "No remote endpoint for port@%u\n",
> > > 			THC63_RGB_OUT0);
> > >
> > > As your patch has been merged already, would you like to post a
> > > follow-up patch to fix this ?
> > Yes, this is indeed a difference. I will post a follow-up patch to fix this.
> I'm actually build-testing a patch I already wrote :-) I'll post it in a
> moment.


OK, then.


> > > >    		return -ENODEV;
> > > > -	}
> > > > -
> > > > -	if (!of_device_is_available(remote)) {
> > > > -		dev_err(thc63->dev, "port@%u remote endpoint is disabled\n",
> > > > -			THC63_RGB_OUT0);
> > > > -		of_node_put(remote);
> > > > -		return -ENODEV;
> > > > -	}
> > > >    
> > > >    	thc63->next = of_drm_find_bridge(remote);
> > > >    	of_node_put(remote);

--
Best regards,
Sui