Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge: Fix refcount shown via debugfs for encoder_bridges_show()

From: Liu Ying

Date: Mon Mar 16 2026 - 22:34:59 EST


On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 12:15:29PM +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> Hello Liu,

Hello Luca,

>
> On Thu Mar 12, 2026 at 7:05 AM CET, Liu Ying wrote:
>> A typical bridge refcount value is 3 after a bridge chain is formed:
>> - devm_drm_bridge_alloc() initializes the refcount value to be 1.
>> - drm_bridge_add() gets an additional reference hence 2.
>> - drm_bridge_attach() gets the third reference hence 3.
>>
>> This typical refcount value aligns with allbridges_show()'s behaviour.
>> However, since encoder_bridges_show() uses
>> drm_for_each_bridge_in_chain_scoped() to automatically get/put the
>> bridge reference while iterating, a bogus reference is accidentally
>> got when showing the wrong typical refcount value as 4 to users via
>> debugfs. Fix this by caching the refcount value returned from
>> kref_read() while iterating and explicitly decreasing the cached
>> refcount value by 1 before showing it to users.
>>
>> Fixes: bd57048e4576 ("drm/bridge: use drm_for_each_bridge_in_chain_scoped()")
>> Signed-off-by: Liu Ying <victor.liu@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
>> index f8b0333a0a3b..84fc3cfd17e0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_bridge.c
>> @@ -1567,14 +1567,18 @@ void devm_drm_put_bridge(struct device *dev, struct drm_bridge *bridge)
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(devm_drm_put_bridge);
>>
>> -static void drm_bridge_debugfs_show_bridge(struct drm_printer *p,
>> - struct drm_bridge *bridge,
>> - unsigned int idx,
>> - bool lingering)
>> +static void __drm_bridge_debugfs_show_bridge(struct drm_printer *p,
>> + struct drm_bridge *bridge,
>> + unsigned int idx,
>> + bool lingering,
>> + bool scoped)
>> {
>> + unsigned int refcount = kref_read(&bridge->refcount);
>> +
>> drm_printf(p, "bridge[%u]: %ps\n", idx, bridge->funcs);
>>
>> - drm_printf(p, "\trefcount: %u%s\n", kref_read(&bridge->refcount),
>> + drm_printf(p, "\trefcount: %u%s\n",
>> + scoped ? --refcount : refcount,
>
> I'd s/--refcount/refcount - 1/ here, no point in modifying the value while
> printing it.

Well, maybe there is a point if we consider 'scoped == true', which means
one reference should be dropped from the refcount. In the future, if the
refcount is used in this function multiple times, then we don't need to
do 'refcount - 1' for each time with '--refcount'. But, for now, since
the refcount is just used for one time in this function, I'm fine with
either '--refcount' or 'refcount - 1', please let me know your preference.

>
>> @@ -1599,6 +1603,22 @@ static void drm_bridge_debugfs_show_bridge(struct drm_printer *p,
>> drm_puts(p, "\n");
>> }
>>
>> +static void drm_bridge_debugfs_show_bridge(struct drm_printer *p,
>> + struct drm_bridge *bridge,
>> + unsigned int idx,
>> + bool lingering)
>> +{
>> + __drm_bridge_debugfs_show_bridge(p, bridge, idx, lingering, false);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void drm_bridge_debugfs_show_bridge_scoped(struct drm_printer *p,
>> + struct drm_bridge *bridge,
>> + unsigned int idx,
>> + bool lingering)
>> +{
>> + __drm_bridge_debugfs_show_bridge(p, bridge, idx, lingering, true);
>> +}
>
> I think this should be much simpler and avoid a lot of the boilerplate
> code: just add a 'bool scoped' argument to drm_bridge_debugfs_show_bridge()
> and pass true/false as applicable.

Hm, I was thinking how to avoid the two bool arguments(lingering and
scoped) for drm_bridge_debugfs_show_bridge(), because they make a function
call look ugly - people have to go back to the function declaration to
check which bool argument is which. So, I came up with the boilerplate
code, at least any function call has just one 'true' or 'false'. I'm open
to any better idea. If you insist on adding a 'bool scoped' argument to
drm_bridge_debugfs_show_bridge() is a good way to go, then I accept that
and would follow - let me know your thoughts.

>
> Or maybe an 'int offset' with an integer to be subtracted from the refcount
> for diplaying, but that's probably overkill.

Yes, that's overkill at least for now. Dropping just one reference from
the refcount is currently enough.

>
> Best regards,
> Luca
>
> --
> Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> https://bootlin.com/

--
Regards,
Liu Ying