Re: [PATCH 06/37] drm/display: bridge-connector: use a drm_bridge_connector internally, not a drm_connector

[Maxime Ripard]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 02:57:39PM +0200, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> On Mon Jun 8, 2026 at 1:41 PM CEST, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 12:37:23PM +0200, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> >> Currently drm_bridge_connector_init() always returns the added connector or
> >> errors out. When adding bridge hotplug the bridge-connector can be
> >> successfully initialized without creating a connector, which can be added
> >> later when the pipeline will be complete.
> >>
> >> For this the internal function drm_bridge_connector_add_connector() must be
> >> able to return a valid drm_bridge_connector even without any drm_connector.
> >>
> >> In preparation to support bridge hotplug, change its return value to be the
> >> same drm_bridge_connector pointer it gets as input, or a PTR_ERR.
> >>
> >> No functional changes, just changing an internal API.
> >>
> >> Note the return value could now become an int (0 or negative error) because
> >> returning the same value received as input does not carry any added
> >> value. However this would be change a lot of lines, so leave such change as
> >> a future cleanup.
> >
> > You just created that function and changed "a lot of lines" already, so
> > I'm not sure that argument holds.
> 
> Do you refer to the previous patch?
> 
> My comment is more about the following patches. It means I separated
> changes moving code to a subfunction from changes to the the return value
> in separate patches, so that each patch is trivial to review for
> correctness.
> 
> Makes sense?

What confused me is that I took it as "I'm not going to do that work
(yet?)". If you do it later on, I'd drop the "future cleanup" part, or
rephrase it.

Maxime

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature