On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 08:59:15PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:39:27PM +, Matt Redfearn wrote:
> > On 25/04/2019 13:13, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> >> On 24.04.2019 16:22, Matt Redfearn wrote:
> >>> The DRM documentation states that post_disable is an optional callbac
Hi Matt,
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:39:27PM +, Matt Redfearn wrote:
> On 25/04/2019 13:13, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> > On 24.04.2019 16:22, Matt Redfearn wrote:
> >> The DRM documentation states that post_disable is an optional callback.
> >> As such an implementing device may not populate it. To
Hi Andrzej,
On 25/04/2019 13:13, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> On 24.04.2019 16:22, Matt Redfearn wrote:
>> The DRM documentation states that post_disable is an optional callback.
>> As such an implementing device may not populate it. To avoid panicing
>> the kernel by calling a NULL function pointer, we
On 24.04.2019 16:22, Matt Redfearn wrote:
> The DRM documentation states that post_disable is an optional callback.
> As such an implementing device may not populate it. To avoid panicing
> the kernel by calling a NULL function pointer, we should NULL check it
> before blindy calling it.
>
> Signed
Hi Matt,
Thank you for the patch.
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 02:22:00PM +, Matt Redfearn wrote:
> The DRM documentation states that post_disable is an optional callback.
> As such an implementing device may not populate it. To avoid panicing
> the kernel by calling a NULL function pointer, we sh
The DRM documentation states that post_disable is an optional callback.
As such an implementing device may not populate it. To avoid panicing
the kernel by calling a NULL function pointer, we should NULL check it
before blindy calling it.
Signed-off-by: Matt Redfearn
---
drivers/gpu/drm/bridge
