Re: [PATCH v10 11/18] drm/bridge: analogix_dp: Apply drm_bridge_connector helper

["Luca Ceresoli" <luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com>]

On Mon Mar 16, 2026 at 4:17 AM CET, Damon Ding wrote:
> Hi Luca,
>
> On 3/14/2026 1:10 AM, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
>> Hello Damon,
>>
>> On Tue Mar 10, 2026 at 2:24 AM CET, Damon Ding wrote:
>>> Initialize bridge_connector for both Rockchip and Exynos encoder sides.
>>> Then, make DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR mandatory for Analogix bridge
>>> side, as the private &drm_connector is no longer created.
>>>
>>> The previous &drm_connector_funcs and &drm_connector_helper_funcs APIs
>>> are replaced by the corresponding &drm_bridge_funcs APIs:
>>>
>>> analogix_dp_atomic_check() -> analogix_dp_bridge_atomic_check()
>>> analogix_dp_detect()       -> analogix_dp_bridge_detect()
>>> analogix_dp_get_modes()    -> analogix_dp_bridge_get_modes()
>>>                                analogix_dp_bridge_edid_read()
>>>
>>> Additionally, the compatibilities of Analogix DP bridge based on whether
>>> the next bridge is a 'panel'. If it is, OP_MODES and OP_DETECT are
>>> supported; If not (the next bridge is a 'monitor' or a bridge chip),
>>> OP_EDID and OP_DETECT are supported.
>>>
>>> The devm_drm_bridge_add() is placed in analogix_dp_bind() instead of
>>> analogix_dp_probe(), because the type of next bridge (the panel, monitor
>>> or bridge chip) can only be determined after the probe process has fully
>>> completed.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Damon Ding <damon.ding@rock-chips.com>
>>> Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
>>> Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> (on rk3588)
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> @@ -73,15 +72,12 @@ static int exynos_dp_bridge_attach(struct analogix_dp_plat_data *plat_data,
>>>   				   struct drm_bridge *bridge)
>>>   {
>>>   	struct exynos_dp_device *dp = to_dp(plat_data);
>>> -	enum drm_bridge_attach_flags flags = 0;
>>>   	int ret;
>>>
>>>   	/* Pre-empt DP connector creation if there's a bridge */
>>>   	if (plat_data->next_bridge) {
>>> -		if (dp->has_of_bridge)
>>> -			flags = DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR;
>>> -
>>> -		ret = drm_bridge_attach(&dp->encoder, plat_data->next_bridge, bridge, flags);
>>> +		ret = drm_bridge_attach(&dp->encoder, plat_data->next_bridge, bridge,
>>> +					DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR);
>>
>> Should this be 'flags | DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR' to be future-proof?
>>
>
> Aha, the exynos_dp_bridge_attach() and even
> &analogix_dp_plat_data.attach() have been removed in [PATCH v10 16/18]
> for consistency and simplification. Since the only bridge flag supported
> right now is DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR, let’s leave this as is for
> now. ;-)

As you are going to send v11, I'd do that change. It is the right thing do
to, it's cheap, and in case patches up to 11/18 but not (yet) up to 16/18
we avoid ending up with unoptimal code until patch 16/18 is applied.

Luca

--
Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com