linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/mipi-dsi: add more multi functions for better error handling

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=VKiEjDfeK8pCqAk8+YWBD2U4ESLik8kiDbvgrZz7o1NA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 17:20:44 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Tejas Vipin <tejasvipin76@...il.com>
Cc: neil.armstrong@...aro.org, quic_jesszhan@...cinc.com, 
	maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com, mripard@...nel.org, tzimmermann@...e.de, 
	airlied@...il.com, daniel@...ll.ch, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, LinusW <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, 
	Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/mipi-dsi: add more multi functions for better
 error handling

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 11:25 AM Tejas Vipin <tejasvipin76@...il.com> wrote:
>
> +/**
> + * mipi_dsi_dcs_set_page_address_multi() - define the column extent of the
> + *     frame memory accessed by the host processor
> + * @ctx: Context for multiple DSI transactions
> + * @start: first column of frame memory
> + * @end: last column of frame memory

nit: "start" and "end" comments should say "first page" and "last
page", not "first column" and "last column". The previous function was
the one about columns.

> + *
> + * Like mipi_dsi_dcs_set_page_address() but deals with errors in a way that
> + * makes it convenient to make several calls in a row.
> + */
> +void mipi_dsi_dcs_set_page_address_multi(struct mipi_dsi_multi_context *ctx,
> +                                          u16 start, u16 end)

nit: indentation of the above line isn't _quite_ right.


Other than the two nits, this looks fine to me, but I'd prefer if
someone else provides an "Ack" in addition to me that they're OK
adding these extra "multi" functions. Both Dmitry and Linus W were
involved in the original "multi" functions, so maybe they'd be willing
to offer their opinions?