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/tidss: Fix missing drm_bridge_add() call Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 07:10:40 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260311-tidss-minor-fixes-v2-2-cb4479784458@ideasonboard.com> References: <20260311-tidss-minor-fixes-v2-0-cb4479784458@ideasonboard.com> <20260311-tidss-minor-fixes-v2-2-cb4479784458@ideasonboard.com> X-Mailer: Claude Code Patch Reviewer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Patch Review **Status: Minor issue =E2=80=94 missing return value check.** The fix correctly adds `devm_drm_bridge_add()` before the `drm_bridge_attac= h()` call, which resolves the "Missing drm_bridge_add() before attach" warn= ing. The placement at line 108 (after setting `possible_crtcs`, before atta= ching) is correct. The commit message is excellent =E2=80=94 it carefully documents why the Fi= xes tag references one commit but a stable backport to pre-v6.17 would need= different code, and why the bug hasn't caused real issues despite being pr= esent since v6.6. **Issue: `devm_drm_bridge_add()` returns `int` and can fail** (it calls `de= vm_add_action_or_reset()` internally), but the return value is not checked: ```c + devm_drm_bridge_add(tidss->dev, &t_enc->bridge); ``` Other callers in the tree check this return value (e.g., `msm/hdmi/hdmi_bri= dge.c`). This should be: ```c ret =3D devm_drm_bridge_add(tidss->dev, &t_enc->bridge); if (ret) return ret; ``` While the failure mode (OOM from `devm_add_action_or_reset`) is unlikely, i= t's good practice to propagate the error, especially since the function alr= eady has `ret` declared and returns errors from other calls on the same pat= h. --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer