On Thu, 16 Nov 2023, Dmitry Baryshkov <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 at 12:29, Sui Jingfeng <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> On 2023/11/15 00:30, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >> >> @@ -703,14 +704,32 @@ static int it66121_bridge_attach(struct drm_bridge >> >> *bridge, >> >> enum drm_bridge_attach_flags flags) >> >> { >> >> struct it66121_ctx *ctx = bridge_to_it66121(bridge); >> >> + struct drm_bridge *next_bridge = ctx->next_bridge; >> >> + struct drm_encoder *encoder = bridge->encoder; >> >> int ret; >> >> >> >> - if (!(flags & DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR)) >> >> - return -EINVAL; >> >> + if (next_bridge) { >> >> + if (!(flags & DRM_BRIDGE_ATTACH_NO_CONNECTOR)) { >> >> + WARN_ON(1); >> > Why? At least use WARN() instead >> >> If (next_bridge) is true, it says that the driver *already* known that >> it66121 have a next bridges attached. Then it66121 driver should certainly >> attach it, no matter what it is. Either a connector or another display >> bridge. >> It also says that this is a DT-based system on such a case. >> CallingWARN_ON(1) here helps to see(print) which DC driver is doing the wired >> things. Ok, I will remove the WARN_ON(1) on the next version. > > That's why I pointed you to WARN(). WARN_ON(1) gives no information to > the user. WARN() allows you to add a message.
Please use drm_WARN* while at it. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel
