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: <ea885b7d-e44b-4fdd-bada-ae368bb7c1b7@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 17:26:13 +0100
From: neil.armstrong@...aro.org
To: Tejas Vipin <tejasvipin76@...il.com>,
 Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: 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

On 30/10/2024 08:24, Tejas Vipin wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/29/24 12:24 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> I did try this initially, but got an error because of page not being a
> compile time constant. Not sure how I should handle this.

I think the current version is fine:

Reviewed-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>

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