[PATCH v2 05/14] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Move MIPI detach() / unregister() to detach()

[Andrzej Hajda]

W dniu 30.03.2021 o 04:53, Douglas Anderson pisze:
> The register() / attach() for MIPI happen in the bridge's
> attach(). That means that the inverse belongs in the bridge's
> detach().


As I commented in previous patch, it would be better to fix mipi/bridge 
registration order in host and this driver.

Have you considered this?


Regards

Andrzej

>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders at chromium.org>
> ---
>
> (no changes since v1)
>
>   drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 15 +++++++++------
>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> index c006678c9921..e8e523b3a16b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
> @@ -437,7 +437,15 @@ static int ti_sn_bridge_attach(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
>   
>   static void ti_sn_bridge_detach(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
>   {
> -	drm_dp_aux_unregister(&bridge_to_ti_sn_bridge(bridge)->aux);
> +	struct ti_sn_bridge *pdata = bridge_to_ti_sn_bridge(bridge);
> +
> +
> +	if (pdata->dsi) {
> +		mipi_dsi_detach(pdata->dsi);
> +		mipi_dsi_device_unregister(pdata->dsi);
> +	}
> +
> +	drm_dp_aux_unregister(&pdata->aux);
>   }
>   
>   static void ti_sn_bridge_disable(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
> @@ -1315,11 +1323,6 @@ static int ti_sn_bridge_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
>   	if (!pdata)
>   		return -EINVAL;
>   
> -	if (pdata->dsi) {
> -		mipi_dsi_detach(pdata->dsi);
> -		mipi_dsi_device_unregister(pdata->dsi);
> -	}
> -
>   	kfree(pdata->edid);
>   
>   	ti_sn_debugfs_remove(pdata);