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: synopsys: dw-dp: Add follow-up bridge support Date: Tue, 05 May 2026 09:49:46 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260501-synopsys-dw-dp-improvements-v2-5-d7e7f6bac77f@collabora.com> References: <20260501-synopsys-dw-dp-improvements-v2-0-d7e7f6bac77f@collabora.com> <20260501-synopsys-dw-dp-improvements-v2-5-d7e7f6bac77f@collabora.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 Adds `devm_drm_of_get_bridge()` to look up and attach a follow-up bridge fr= om port 1 of the DT node. ```c + next_bridge =3D devm_drm_of_get_bridge(dev, dev->of_node, 1, 0); + if (IS_ERR(next_bridge)) { + ret =3D PTR_ERR(next_bridge); + dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "failed to get follow-up bridge.\n"); + goto unregister_aux; + } ``` **Issue:** This makes the follow-up bridge **mandatory** =E2=80=94 if the D= T doesn't have a port@1, `devm_drm_of_get_bridge()` will return `-ENODEV` a= nd binding fails. For boards using a fixed DP connector (no USB-C), there m= ight not be a follow-up bridge. This should either be made optional (check = for `-ENODEV` and skip) or the commit message should clarify that port@1 is= always required in the binding. Looking at the RK3588/RK3576 DT bindings, = port@1 is for output =E2=80=94 but I suspect not all boards will have a bri= dge chain there. --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer