linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] drm/panel: himax-hx83102: Break out as separate 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAD=FV=UaTj_ojJvc2T22e49MhB-zp1+Z_tp9uULS0r8MesUd2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 09:42:29 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Cong Yang <yangcong5@...qin.corp-partner.google.com>
Cc: sam@...nborg.org, neil.armstrong@...aro.org, daniel@...ll.ch, 
	linus.walleij@...aro.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, 
	robh+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, airlied@...il.com, 
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xuxinxiong@...qin.corp-partner.google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] drm/panel: himax-hx83102: Break out as separate driver

Hi,

On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 6:53 PM Cong Yang
<yangcong5@...qin.corp-partner.google.com> wrote:
>
> +static int hx83102_enable(struct drm_panel *panel)
> +{
> +       struct hx83102 *ctx = panel_to_hx83102(panel);
> +       struct mipi_dsi_device *dsi = ctx->dsi;
> +       struct device *dev = &dsi->dev;
> +       int ret;
> +
> +       ret = mipi_dsi_dcs_exit_sleep_mode(dsi);
> +       if (ret) {
> +               dev_err(dev, "Failed to exit sleep mode: %d\n", ret);
> +               return ret;
> +       }
> +
> +       msleep(120);
> +
> +       ret = mipi_dsi_dcs_set_display_on(dsi);
> +       if (ret) {
> +               dev_err(dev, "Failed to turn on the display: %d\n", ret);
> +               return ret;
> +       }

FWIW, I think that the mipi_dsi_dcs_exit_sleep_mode(), msleep(120),
and mipi_dsi_dcs_set_display_on() should also be in the prepare() to
match how they were in the boe-tv101wum-nl6.c driver, right? Then the
enable() would be left with just the simple "msleep(130)".

I know it doesn't make much difference and it probably doesn't matter
and maybe I'm just being a little nitpicky, but given that the
prepare() and enable() functions are unique phases I'd rather be
explicit if we've moving something from one phase to the other.


-Doug