On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 03:54:10PM -0500, Anusha Srivatsa wrote: > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 8:27 AM Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 02:15:56PM -0500, Anusha Srivatsa wrote: > > > Put the panel reference back when driver is no > > > longer using it. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Anusha Srivatsa <asrivats@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > When I asked you to provide a rationale for why you think the > > drm_panel_put() call belonged where it does, it was pretty obvious it > > needed to be done for all patches with the same issue, not just a few > > random ones. > > Well, not totally random. THe intention was to specifically explain > the cases where the drm_panel_put() is part of a probe(), enable() or > attach() like function since that caused confusion in the last > version. There must have been misunderstanding on my end when I > thought only those cases needed additional explanation. I will make > the commit message more verbose. Eventually, it's a memory management thing. You can't judge how a driver, framework or function uses the memory from 3 lines of context. This patch is a good example: it might make sense from the 3 lines of context. But if you consider what this function is doing, and how it uses the drm_panel pointer, what you did is broken. Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
