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@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);