This is a nice point, but I think that a fairly strong argument can be made for The Wall being at least semi-autobiographical, and that the character of Pink, through his actions, reflects many of Roger's latent fears and insecurities about the path that he was treading at the time (disconnection from the audience, difficulty establishing intimate relationships, extreme disillusionment, egomaniacal musings, etc.). At the time of its release, some of these were becoming conspicuous, as in his begrudging treatment of his bandmates. To this one might add the themes of a deceased father, an overbearing, dogmatic education in post-war England, and marital problems, which all reflect Roger's struggles in his own life. At its core, The Wall is highly introspective, which I think a lot of people overlook when they accuse it of being pompous and bombastic. It was a man admitting and battling many of his personal demons in a loosely veiled fashion- or at least this is my interpretation.
As for the feud, a case can be made that Dave was as integral to Pink Floyd as Roger, which I think is made clear by the manner in which both of their later works suffer from the absence of the other. In Roger's case, the music lacks the majesty of Floyd, while Dave's Floyd and solo work severely lacks the lyrical brilliance of Waters. Both then sought to rectify the respective absences; Waters by turning to Eric Clapton and Jeff Beck, and Gilmour by employing a myriad of lyricists. Furthermore, Dave made writing contributions to both Animals and The Wall in very integral places; according to him, they would have been more numerous, had Roger not rejected many of his ideas in favor of more story-centered pieces. Of course, there is no way to substantiate this, nor to justify either of them in their petulance. Essentially, I believe that both parties were guilty of undervaluing the contributions of the other.