linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] drm/panel/synaptics-r63353: Use

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAD=FV=XubjtTV70MMPBm2EwoLzoQPHKv6RzHXJgf44mu-h2o=w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 08:42:36 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Anusha Srivatsa <asrivats@...hat.com>
Cc: Michael Trimarchi <michael@...rulasolutions.com>, 
	Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>, Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan@...cinc.com>, 
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, 
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, 
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>, Tejas Vipin <tejasvipin76@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/panel/synaptics-r63353: Use _multi variants

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 7:54 AM Anusha Srivatsa <asrivats@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> > @@ -78,7 +79,7 @@ static int r63353_panel_power_on(struct r63353_panel *rpanel)
>> >                 return ret;
>> >         }
>> >
>> > -       usleep_range(15000, 25000);
>> > +       mipi_dsi_usleep_range(&dsi_ctx, 15000, 25000);
>>
>> No. None of the conversions in this function are correct.
>> mipi_dsi_usleep_range() is only for use when you're in the middle of a
>> bunch of other "multi" calls and want the sleep to be conditional upon
>> there being no error. Here there is no chance of an error because no
>> _multi() are used. Go back to the normal usleep_range().
>>
>
> OK. Then the approach to prefer mipi_dsi_usleep_range() over the previously used usleep_range() everywhere is out the window. Sounds good. Is replacing msleep() with mipi_dsi_msleep() preferable?

Same rules there. If you're in the middle of a sequence of "multi"
commands and only want the sleep if there is no error then use
mipi_dsi_msleep(). If you're not then use a regular msleep().


-Doug