Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] drm/bridge: imx8qxp-pixel-link: get/put the next bridge

[Liu Ying <victor.liu@nxp.com>]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 04:58:18PM +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> On Tue Jan 27, 2026 at 4:54 AM CET, Liu Ying wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>>>> @@ -260,7 +259,7 @@ static int imx8qxp_pixel_link_find_next_bridge(struct imx8qxp_pixel_link *pl)
>>>>>  {
>>>>>  	struct device_node *np = pl->dev->of_node;
>>>>>  	struct device_node *port;
>>>>> -	struct drm_bridge *selected_bridge = NULL;
>>>>> +	struct drm_bridge *selected_bridge __free(drm_bridge_put) = NULL;
>>>>>  	u32 port_id;
>>>>>  	bool found_port = false;
>>>>>  	int reg;
>>>>> @@ -297,7 +296,8 @@ static int imx8qxp_pixel_link_find_next_bridge(struct imx8qxp_pixel_link *pl)
>>>>>  			continue;
>>>>>  		}
>>>>>
>>>>> -		struct drm_bridge *next_bridge = of_drm_find_bridge(remote);
>>>>> +		struct drm_bridge *next_bridge __free(drm_bridge_put) =
>>>>> +			of_drm_find_and_get_bridge(remote);
>>>>>  		if (!next_bridge)
>>>>>  			return -EPROBE_DEFER;
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -305,12 +305,14 @@ static int imx8qxp_pixel_link_find_next_bridge(struct imx8qxp_pixel_link *pl)
>>>>>  		 * Select the next bridge with companion PXL2DPI if
>>>>>  		 * present, otherwise default to the first bridge
>>>>>  		 */
>>>>> -		if (!selected_bridge || of_property_present(remote, "fsl,companion-pxl2dpi"))
>>>>> -			selected_bridge = next_bridge;
>>>>> +		if (!selected_bridge || of_property_present(remote, "fsl,companion-pxl2dpi")) {
>>>>> +			drm_bridge_put(selected_bridge);
>>>>> +			selected_bridge = drm_bridge_get(next_bridge);
>>>>
>>>> Considering selecting the first bridge without the companion pxl2dpi,
>>>> there would be a superfluous refcount for the selected bridge:
>>>>
>>>> 1) of_drm_find_and_get_bridge: refcount = 1
>>>> 2) drm_bridge_put: noop, since selected_bridge is NULL, refcount = 1
>>>> 3) drm_bridge_get: refcount = 2
>>>> 4) drm_bridge_put(__free): refcount = 1
>>>> 5) drm_bridge_get: for the pl->bridge.next_bridge, refcount = 2
>>>
>>> Here you are missing one put. There are two drm_bridge_put(__free), one for
>>> next_bridge and one for selected_bridge. So your list should rather be:
>>>
>>> 1) next_bridge = of_drm_find_and_get_bridge: refcount = 1
>>> 2) drm_bridge_put(selected_bridge): noop, since selected_bridge is NULL, refcount = 1
>>> 3) selected_bridge = drm_bridge_get: refcount = 2
>>> 4) drm_bridge_put(next_bridge) [__free at loop scope end]: refcount = 1
>>> 5) pl->bridge.next_bridge = drm_bridge_get(), refcount = 2
>>> 6) drm_bridge_put(selected_bridge) [__free at function scope end]: refcount = 1
>>
>> Ah, right, I did miss this last put because selected_bridge is declared with
>> __free a bit far away from the loop at the very beginning of
>> imx8qxp_pixel_link_find_next_bridge() - that's my problem I guess, but I'm
>> not even sure if I'll fall into this same pitfall again after a while, which
>> makes the driver difficult to maintain.
>>
>> Also, it seems that the refcount dance(back and forth bewteen 1 and 2) is not
>> something straightforward for driver readers to follow.
> 
> I thing the whole logic becomes straightforward if you think it this way:
> 
>  * when a pointer is assigned = a new reference starts existing -> refcount++
>  * when a pointer is cleared/overwritten or goes out of scope = a reference
>    stops existing -> refcount--
> 
> In short: one pointer, one reference, one refcount.
> 
> If you re-read the patch with this in mind, does it become clearer?

Thanks for more explaination, maybe it becomes a bit clearer, I'm not sure:/

Anyway, to simplify things with another try, I came up with the below
snippet in that loop, which drops the two intermediate bridges(local
next_bridge and selected_bridge) and uses pl->next_bridge only.
It looks ok to me(at least, refcount dance is much simpler).

-8<-
if (!pl->next_bridge || of_property_present(remote, "fsl,companion-pxl2dpi")) {
        drm_bridge_put(pl->next_bridge);
        pl->next_bridge = of_drm_find_and_get_bridge(remote);
        if (!pl->next_bridge)
                return -EPROBE_DEFER;
}
-8<-

What do you think?

-- 
Regards,
Liu Ying