linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] drm/bridge: anx7625: Add anx7625 MIPI DSI/DPI to DP bridge driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200430071135.GA9227@xin-VirtualBox>
Date:   Thu, 30 Apr 2020 15:11:35 +0800
From:   Xin Ji <xji@...logixsemi.com>
To:     Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
        Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>,
        Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...l.net>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Pi-Hsun Shih <pihsun@...omium.org>,
        Sheng Pan <span@...logixsemi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] drm/bridge: anx7625: Add anx7625 MIPI DSI/DPI to
 DP bridge driver

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 09:03:24AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> Hi Xin Ji.
> 
> > > > +static void anx7625_power_on_init(struct anx7625_data *ctx)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	int retry_count, i;
> > > > +	int ret;
> > > > +	struct device *dev = &ctx->client->dev;
> > > > +
> > > > +	for (retry_count = 0; retry_count < 3; retry_count++) {
> > > > +		anx7625_power_on(ctx);
> > > > +		anx7625_config(ctx);
> > > > +
> > > > +		for (i = 0; i < OCM_LOADING_TIME; i++) {
> > > Code in this for loop is a candidate for a helper function.
> > I didn't find any helper function can be used, so I'll keep it.
> I was not very clear in my way to express this, sorry.
> 
> > > 
> > > > +			/* check interface workable */
> > > > +			ret = anx7625_reg_read(ctx, ctx->i2c.rx_p0_client,
> > > > +					       FLASH_LOAD_STA);
> > > > +			if (ret < 0) {
> > > > +				DRM_ERROR("IO error : access flash load.\n");
> > > > +				return;
> > > > +			}
> > > > +			if ((ret & FLASH_LOAD_STA_CHK) == FLASH_LOAD_STA_CHK) {
> > > > +				anx7625_disable_pd_protocol(ctx);
> > > > +				DRM_DEV_DEBUG_DRIVER(dev,
> > > > +						     "Firmware ver %02x%02x,",
> > > > +					anx7625_reg_read(ctx,
> > > > +							 ctx->i2c.rx_p0_client,
> > > > +							 OCM_FW_VERSION),
> > > > +					anx7625_reg_read(ctx,
> > > > +							 ctx->i2c.rx_p0_client,
> > > > +							 OCM_FW_REVERSION));
> > > > +				DRM_DEV_DEBUG_DRIVER(dev, "Driver version %s\n",
> > > > +						     ANX7625_DRV_VERSION);
> > > > +
> > > > +				return;
> > > > +			}
> > > > +			usleep_range(1000, 1100);
> > > > +		}
> What I wanted to express is that the for loop is heavily indented.
> So create a small function like:
> 
> anx7625_power_on_interface(ctx)
> {
> 	/* check interface workable */
> 	ret = anx7625_reg_read(ctx, ctx->i2c.rx_p0_client, FLASH_LOAD_STA);
> 	if (ret < 0) {
> 	        DRM_ERROR("IO error : access flash load.\n");
> 	        return;
> 	}
> 	if ((ret & FLASH_LOAD_STA_CHK) == FLASH_LOAD_STA_CHK) {
> 	        anx7625_disable_pd_protocol(ctx);
> 	        DRM_DEV_DEBUG_DRIVER(dev, "Firmware ver %02x%02x,",
> 	                anx7625_reg_read(ctx, ctx->i2c.rx_p0_client,
>                                          OCM_FW_VERSION), anx7625_reg_read(ctx,
> 	                                 ctx->i2c.rx_p0_client, OCM_FW_REVERSION));
> 	        DRM_DEV_DEBUG_DRIVER(dev, "Driver version %s\n",
> 	                             ANX7625_DRV_VERSION);
> 		retunrn 1;
> 	}
> 	return 0;
> }
> 
> and then
> 
> 	for (i = 0; i < OCM_LOADING_TIME; i++) {
> 		if (anx7625_power_on_interface(ctx))
> 			return;
> 		else
> 			usleep_range(1000, 1100);
> 	}
> 
> Or something like that. To make it more readable.
> I think you get the idea now.
OK, got it, thanks.
> 
> 
> > > > +		container_of(work, struct anx7625_data, extcon_wq);
> > > > +	int state = extcon_get_state(ctx->extcon, EXTCON_DISP_DP);
> > > > +
> > > > +	mutex_lock(&ctx->lock);
> > > > +	anx7625_chip_control(ctx, state);
> > > > +	mutex_unlock(&ctx->lock);
> > > I tried to follow the locking - but failed.
> > > Could you check that locking seems correct.
> > > 
> > > A standard bridge driver do not need locking,
> > > but this is no small bridge driver so I do not imply that
> > > locking is not needed. Only that I would like you
> > > to check it again as I could not follow it.
> > OK, it seems lock is not necessary, I'll remove itA
> It has a worker, so please be careful in you analysis.
OK, I'll double check it.
> 
> > > 
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (pdata->panel_flags == 1)
> > > > +		pdata->internal_panel = 1;
> > > > +	else if (pdata->panel_flags == 2)
> > > > +		pdata->extcon_supported = 1;
> > > > +	DRM_DEV_DEBUG_DRIVER(dev, "%s support extcon, %s internal panel\n",
> > > > +			     pdata->extcon_supported ? "" : "not",
> > > > +			     pdata->internal_panel ? "has" : "no");
> > > > +
> > > The way the internal panel - versus external connector is modelled
> > > looks like it could use some of the abstractions used by other bridge
> > > drivers.
> > > 
> > > The connector_type shall for example for internal panels come
> > > form the panel.
> > > And use the panel bridge driver - see examples in patches I referenced
> > > before.
> > > 
> > > And external connectors may beneft from using the
> > > display-connector bridge driver.
> > I'm not familiar with it, the extcon interface is Google engineer give
> > to me, I just follow their sample driver. If you think it is not good,
> > I'll remove the extcon support.
> It would be better to start without, and then add it later
> so we end up with a clean design.
> 
> I for one would have an easier time reviewing.
> 
> So please go ahead and remove it for now.
OK
> 
> 
> 	Sam