From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Claude Code Review Bot To: dri-devel-reviews@example.com Subject: Claude review: drm: bridge: dw_hdmi: Misc enable/disable, CEC and EDID cleanup Date: Tue, 05 May 2026 07:58:54 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260504191059.275928-1-jonas@kwiboo.se> References: <20260504191059.275928-1-jonas@kwiboo.se> X-Mailer: Claude Code Patch Reviewer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Overall Series Review Subject: drm: bridge: dw_hdmi: Misc enable/disable, CEC and EDID cleanup Author: Jonas Karlman Patches: 19 Reviewed: 2026-05-05T07:58:54.413382 --- This is a well-structured 17-patch cleanup series for the Synopsys DesignWa= re HDMI bridge driver (`dw-hdmi.c`). The series systematically simplifies t= he HPD/RXSENSE interrupt handling, moves power on/off into the atomic bridg= e callbacks, eliminates stale state tracking (`bridge_is_on`, `previous_mod= e`, `rxsense`, `sink_is_hdmi`, `sink_has_audio`), switches CEC notifier han= dling to use the generic CEC helpers, and introduces debounced HPD processi= ng via `delayed_work`. The overall direction is excellent =E2=80=94 the driver becomes significant= ly simpler (net -183 lines), and the changes align with how the DRM bridge = infrastructure expects things to work. Each patch is well-scoped and the co= mmit messages are clear and well-written with good rationale. Most patches carry Reviewed-by tags already. The new v4 patches (12, 13, 14= , 15, 16, 17) do not yet have reviews, and these are the ones that deserve = the most scrutiny. I have a few observations and one concern: **Main concern**: Patch 14 (RXSENSE rework) removes the `force` field from = `struct dw_hdmi` and the `disabled` field, but patch 10 (which applies earl= ier) still writes to `hdmi->force` in `dw_hdmi_connector_force()`. This loo= ks like a build-breaking ordering dependency =E2=80=94 patch 10 assigns `hd= mi->force` but patch 14 removes the field. The intermediary patches (11, 12= , 13) don't appear to remove the `force` usage. This needs to be verified c= arefully =E2=80=94 the mbox ordering doesn't exactly match patch numbering = so I may be misreading the incremental diffs, but if the `force` field is a= ccessed after it's removed, that's a compile error. **Minor observations** are noted per-patch below. --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer