linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] drm/panel: boe-bf060y8m-aj0: 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: <jlqxx47vzlp6rmwpi3tskig4qu4bgyqd7vletxbzzn7xdpep72@42tzrjkg65lh>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 23:28:15 +0300
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: Tejas Vipin <tejasvipin76@...il.com>, 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, asrivats@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/panel: boe-bf060y8m-aj0: transition to mipi_dsi
 wrapped functions

On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 08:06:36AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 11:18 PM Tejas Vipin <tejasvipin76@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > @@ -157,7 +137,6 @@ static int boe_bf060y8m_aj0_prepare(struct drm_panel *panel)
> >
> >         ret = boe_bf060y8m_aj0_on(boe);
> >         if (ret < 0) {
> > -               dev_err(dev, "Failed to initialize panel: %d\n", ret);
> >                 gpiod_set_value_cansleep(boe->reset_gpio, 1);
> >                 return ret;
> 
> It's not new, but the error handling here looks wrong to me. Instead
> of just returning after setting the GPIO, this should be turning off
> the regulators, shouldn't it? That would mean adding a new error label
> for turning off "BF060Y8M_VREG_VCI" and then jumping to that.

We should not be turning off the regulator in _prepare(), there will be
an unmatched regulator disable call happening in _unprepare(). Of course
it can be handled by adding a boolean, etc, but I think keeping them on
is a saner thing.

> 
> Given that we're already squeezing an error handling fix into this
> patch, maybe it would make sense to add this one too (and, of course,
> mention it in the commit message).
> 
> -Doug

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry