From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from relay7-d.mail.gandi.net (relay7-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CE1C1DFFC for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2025 13:03:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.70.183.200 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755694996; cv=none; b=PZiadFZPDv1TumQ2rjaGFGtS2eAnNZiyT8ywQjWW4wgaYJQZM35pKqYYi9BKXSM4m9r4U8fkbLaqkTvFVMjZWpriiQuQszjOSZbWS1zhtTDO649s9ZsT2MCdS+3hvFrAHPRQy7uLDAP6vq5SMFS3fOsj71s6rM0XUVcKwwz5T00= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755694996; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ou3ZKDpar22z4Oo2WKPAdf/6zQC0VvNL1qqpdsnqSrY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=frLb/s8EG07JO6DE5ybY9mDD71CnHxnTfHyuv5bAz72pNOQXAuNwJAHxKmRzZvbPl6wjbHPiXNqXI/FMiF+qzX1+Y230RznOXHh8HdbeWiPoCtvWZxjdFeO3+sKmu+obS3IdqsGeYhLE5/L2lrTYi7K38PV7VLdh1G3TdTzacgw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=bootlin.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=bootlin.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bootlin.com header.i=@bootlin.com header.b=KRppZq+b; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.70.183.200 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=bootlin.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=bootlin.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bootlin.com header.i=@bootlin.com header.b="KRppZq+b" Received: by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9CE7E43960; Wed, 20 Aug 2025 13:03:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bootlin.com; s=gm1; t=1755694990; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Rt+0HzlN0GaJY1va0P0oiYStG3sAxyTGjMfwBuvnESY=; b=KRppZq+bBuap94XWSmAOhDA3aclBmjsNIEqRm59WtPolG/xPd78QgqhUFgPaxmkhTI5t+m 3X5+2ti0WeFuEDJ01GYN/EZExEPgbw3WXuzcTsK6ePb3EKOuQRcCVYu45ZkS3gpavIZ4Ds jnIrsIUWLodzZ9mMnWSI7FpijLjEb0WCi2APzDW2hIjqpq6msOw1Rsc5dP6ctb10HaCOP4 in9JuXK+vOUHek9nlDFXksOjG0Bpuzk51zAi6Q3dD+waCV7gCSd+iLqNjethPBnoWgx+tL 0jHHsljZi7RhIDnYMXhJGORvLh02VVEO2JmKsa3qpGYY2+w1LswmKWfXW1CEFA== Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2025 15:03:07 +0200 From: Luca Ceresoli To: Maxime Ripard Cc: Andrzej Hajda , Neil Armstrong , Robert Foss , Laurent Pinchart , Jonas Karlman , Jernej Skrabec , Maarten Lankhorst , Thomas Zimmermann , David Airlie , Simona Vetter , Hui Pu , Thomas Petazzoni , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dmitry Baryshkov Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/3] drm/bridge: add list of removed refcounted bridges Message-ID: <20250820150307.358e164c@booty> In-Reply-To: References: <20250819-drm-bridge-debugfs-removed-v7-0-970702579978@bootlin.com> <20250819-drm-bridge-debugfs-removed-v7-2-970702579978@bootlin.com> Organization: Bootlin X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.1 (GTK 3.24.49; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-GND-State: clean X-GND-Score: -100 X-GND-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdefgdduheekgeegucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuifetpfffkfdpucggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddunecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpeffhffvvefukfgjfhhoofggtgfgsehtjeertdertddvnecuhfhrohhmpefnuhgtrgcuvegvrhgvshholhhiuceolhhutggrrdgtvghrvghsohhlihessghoohhtlhhinhdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepgeelffefgfehhfdtvdefueefieevkefggfelkeeiudetkeektedvhedukefgvddvnecuffhomhgrihhnpegsohhothhlihhnrdgtohhmnecukfhppedvrgdtvdemieejtdemvddtvddtmegvrgdtudemsggvgedumeelhegvjeemfeegfeemledufegvnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehinhgvthepvdgrtddvmeeijedtmedvtddvtdemvggrtddumegsvgegudemleehvgejmeefgeefmeeludefvgdphhgvlhhopegsohhothihpdhmrghilhhfrhhomheplhhutggrrdgtvghrvghsohhlihessghoohhtlhhinhdrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepudeipdhrtghpthhtohepmhhrihhprghrugeskhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtoheprghnughriigvjhdrhhgrjhgurgesihhnthgvlhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehnvghilhdrrghrmhhsthhrohhngheslhhinhgrr hhordhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtoheprhhfohhssheskhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepnfgruhhrvghnthdrphhinhgthhgrrhhtsehiuggvrghsohhnsghorghrugdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehjohhnrghssehkfihisghoohdrshgvpdhrtghpthhtohepjhgvrhhnvghjrdhskhhrrggsvggtsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepmhgrrghrthgvnhdrlhgrnhhkhhhorhhstheslhhinhhugidrihhnthgvlhdrtghomh X-GND-Sasl: luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com Hi Maxime, On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 13:15:30 +0200 Maxime Ripard wrote: > > @@ -197,15 +197,22 @@ > > * driver. > > */ > > > > +/* Protect bridge_list and bridge_removed_list */ > > static DEFINE_MUTEX(bridge_lock); > > static LIST_HEAD(bridge_list); > > +static LIST_HEAD(bridge_removed_list); > > I'm not super fond of "removed" here, it's ambiguous, especially since > the bridge wouldn't be considered as removed after the last put. > > lingering maybe? Sure, will rename. > > @@ -288,10 +296,13 @@ void *__devm_drm_bridge_alloc(struct device *dev, size_t size, size_t offset, > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(__devm_drm_bridge_alloc); > > > > /** > > - * drm_bridge_add - add the given bridge to the global bridge list > > + * drm_bridge_add - publish a bridge > > * > > * @bridge: bridge control structure > > * > > + * Add the given bridge to the global list of "published" bridges, where > > + * they can be found by users via of_drm_find_bridge(). > > It's quite a change in semantics, at least in the doc. I believe it > should be a separate patch, since it's really more about updating the > drm_bridge_add / drm_bridge_remove doc than collecting the > removed-but-not-freed bridges. > > Also, I'm not sure if it's more obvious here. The quotes around publish > kind of it to that too. Maybe using register / registration would make > it more obvious? OK, I'll reword using register/registration and definitely move to a separate patch. Thanks for reviewing. Luca -- Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com