Re: [PATCH v4 20/25] drm/tilcdc: Use devm_drm_of_get_bridge() helper

[Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@bootlin.com>]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 15:03:21 +0100
Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 10:18:12PM +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> > Maxime, I'd appreciate your opinion about the topic below.
> > 
> > > -	int ret;
> > >
> > > -	ret = drm_of_find_panel_or_bridge(ddev->dev->of_node, 0, 0,
> > > -					  &panel, &bridge);
> > > -	if (ret == -ENODEV)
> > > +	bridge = devm_drm_of_get_bridge(ddev->dev, ddev->dev->of_node,
> > > 0, 0);
> > > +	if (PTR_ERR(bridge) == -ENODEV)  
> > 
> > This patch is technically OK in the sense that the code before and after
> > would be equivalent. However if it were me I would not do this change. The
> > reason is that both drm_of_find_panel_or_bridge() and *_of_get_bridge() are
> > problematic when introducing drm_bridge hotplug, which is the long-term
> > goal I am working for, but *_of_get_bridge() is more problematic than
> > drm_of_find_panel_or_bridge().
> > 
> > These functions are still there and not deprecated because there is
> > currently no better replacement (and drm_bridge hotplug is not yet
> > supported because of this and other things still to be done). To have a
> > replacement, the panel_bridge lifetime needs to be reworked first and
> > that's not going to happen overnight. So, all in all, if this patch is not
> > crucial to your series I'd consider dropping it. But if it is important I'm
> > fine with applying it, it won't make a huge difference.  
> 
> Eh. I'm fine either way. I understand what you're saying, but this patch
> doesn't introduce any *new* problem while it cleans up the driver, so I
> guess we could merge it still. And further clean it up with what you
> were suggesting later on.

As you want. I will then keep the patch. If anyone has reasons why these
patch should not be merged, speak now or forever hold your peace! ^^

Regards,
-- 
Köry Maincent, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com