Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi83: protect device resources on unplug

Maxime Ripard
2025-09-10T07:52:25Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2539 bytes --]

On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 03:49:01PM +0200, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> Hello Maxime,
>
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 13:13:02 +0200
> Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * sn65dsi83_atomic_disable() should release some resources, but it
> > > > + * cannot if we call drm_bridge_unplug() before it can
> > > > + * drm_bridge_enter(). If that happens, let's release those
> > > > + * resources now.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (ctx->disable_resources_needed) {
> > > > + if (!ctx->irq)
> > > > + sn65dsi83_monitor_stop(ctx);
> > > > +
> > > > + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(ctx->enable_gpio, 0);
> > > > + usleep_range(10000, 11000);
> > > > +
> > > > + regulator_disable(ctx->vcc);
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > I'm not sure you need this. Wouldn't registering a devm action do the
> > > same thing?
> >
> > Good idea, thanks. I'll give it a try.
>
> I'm catching up with this series after being busy a few weeks...
>
> I looked at this, but contrary my initial impression I think it would
> not be an improvement.
>
> The reason is at least one of these cleanup actions (namely the
> regulator_disable()) must be done only if there is a matching enable,
> which is in atomic_pre_enable. This is why I introduced a flag in the
> first place.
>
> I'm not sure which usage of devres you had in mind, but I see two
> options.
>
> Option 1: in probe, add a devres action to call a function like:
>
> sn65dsi83_cleanups()
> {
> if (ctx->disable_resources_needed) {
> /* the same cleanups */
> }
> }
>
> But that is just a more indirect way of doing the same thing, and
> relies on the same flag.
>
> Option 2: have a function to unconditionally do the cleanups:
>
> sn65dsi83_cleanups()
> {
> /* the same cleanups (no if) */
> }
>
> And then:
> * in atomic_pre_enable, instead of setting the flag
> add a devres action to call sn65dsi83_cleanups()
> * in atomic_disable, instead of clearing the flag
> remove the devres action
>
> Even this option looks like more complicated and less readable code
> to do the same thing.
>
> Do you have in mind a better option that I haven't figured out?

Would using devm_add_action in atomic_pre_enable, and
devm_release_action in atomic_post_disable work?

That way, if you have a typical enable / disable cycle, the action will
get registered and executed properly, and if you only have an enable but
no matching disable, it will be collected after remove.

Maxime

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 273 bytes --]