linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/panel: leadtek-ltk050h3146w: transition to mipi

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=Vps5vWD72O_kYhuKudduYed41+tZrVRB6x+FiaZrm-EA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2024 11:54:44 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Tejas Vipin <tejasvipin76@...il.com>
Cc: neil.armstrong@...aro.org, maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com, 
	mripard@...nel.org, tzimmermann@...e.de, airlied@...il.com, simona@...ll.ch, 
	quic_jesszhan@...cinc.com, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/panel: leadtek-ltk050h3146w: transition to mipi_dsi
 wrapped functions

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 9:00 PM Tejas Vipin <tejasvipin76@...il.com> wrote:
>
> @@ -418,79 +398,42 @@ static const struct ltk050h3146w_desc ltk050h3146w_data = {
>                 MIPI_DSI_MODE_LPM | MIPI_DSI_MODE_NO_EOT_PACKET,
>  };
>
> -static int ltk050h3146w_a2_select_page(struct ltk050h3146w *ctx, int page)
> +static void ltk050h3146w_a2_select_page(struct mipi_dsi_multi_context *dsi_ctx, int page)
>  {
> -       struct mipi_dsi_device *dsi = to_mipi_dsi_device(ctx->dev);
> -       u8 d[3] = { 0x98, 0x81, page };
> +       u8 d[4] = { 0xff, 0x98, 0x81, page };
>
> -       return mipi_dsi_dcs_write(dsi, 0xff, d, ARRAY_SIZE(d));
> +       mipi_dsi_dcs_write_buffer_multi(dsi_ctx, d, ARRAY_SIZE(d));

FWIW: the above might be slightly better as:

mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq_multi(dsi_ctx, 0xff, 0x98, 0x81, page);

That would make it more documenting that the 0xff is the "cmd", has
fewer lines of code, and also gets the array marked as "static const"
which might make the compiler slightly more efficient. ;-)

Not really a huge deal, though.

Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>