[PATCH v3 3/7] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: use the auxiliary device creation helper

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 9:28 AM Jerome Brunet <jbrunet at baylibre.com> wrote:
>
> The auxiliary device creation of this driver is simple enough to
> use the available auxiliary device creation helper.
>
> Use it and remove some boilerplate code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet at baylibre.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 84 +++++++++--------------------------
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-)

Thanks for creating the helpers and getting rid of some boilerplate!
This conflicts with commit 574f5ee2c85a ("drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86:
Fix multiple instances") which is in drm-next, though. Please resolve.

Since nothing here is urgent, I would assume patch #1 would land and
then we'd just wait until it made it to mainline before landing the
other patches in their respective trees?


> -static int ti_sn65dsi86_add_aux_device(struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata,
> -                                      struct auxiliary_device **aux_out,
> -                                      const char *name)
> -{
> -       struct device *dev = pdata->dev;
> -       struct auxiliary_device *aux;
> -       int ret;
> -
> -       aux = kzalloc(sizeof(*aux), GFP_KERNEL);
> -       if (!aux)
> -               return -ENOMEM;
> -
> -       aux->name = name;
> -       aux->dev.parent = dev;
> -       aux->dev.release = ti_sn65dsi86_aux_device_release;
> -       device_set_of_node_from_dev(&aux->dev, dev);
> -       ret = auxiliary_device_init(aux);
> -       if (ret) {
> -               kfree(aux);
> -               return ret;
> -       }
> -       ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, ti_sn65dsi86_uninit_aux, aux);
> -       if (ret)
> -               return ret;
> -
> -       ret = auxiliary_device_add(aux);
> -       if (ret)
> -               return ret;
> -       ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, ti_sn65dsi86_delete_aux, aux);
> -       if (!ret)
> -               *aux_out = aux;

I notice that your new code has one fewer devm_add_action_or_reset()
than the code here which you're replacing. That means it needs to call
"uninit" explicitly in one extra place. It still seems clean enough,
though, so I don't have any real objections to the way you're doing it
there. ;-)

-Doug