On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 11:49:49AM GMT, Tejas Vipin wrote: > > > On 9/20/24 9:59 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 12:47:10PM GMT, Tejas Vipin wrote: > >> Changes the elida-kd35t133 panel to use multi style functions for > >> improved error handling. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Tejas Vipin <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-elida-kd35t133.c | 107 ++++++++----------- > >> 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-elida-kd35t133.c > >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-elida-kd35t133.c > >> index 00791ea81e90..62abda9559e7 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-elida-kd35t133.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-elida-kd35t133.c > >> @@ -135,25 +127,16 @@ static int kd35t133_prepare(struct drm_panel *panel) > >> > >> msleep(20); > >> > >> - ret = mipi_dsi_dcs_exit_sleep_mode(dsi); > >> - if (ret < 0) { > >> - dev_err(ctx->dev, "Failed to exit sleep mode: %d\n", ret); > >> - goto disable_iovcc; > >> - } > >> + mipi_dsi_dcs_exit_sleep_mode_multi(&dsi_ctx); > >> + mipi_dsi_msleep(&dsi_ctx, 250); > >> > >> - msleep(250); > >> + kd35t133_init_sequence(&dsi_ctx); > >> + if (!dsi_ctx.accum_err) > >> + dev_dbg(ctx->dev, "Panel init sequence done\n"); > >> > >> - ret = kd35t133_init_sequence(ctx); > >> - if (ret < 0) { > >> - dev_err(ctx->dev, "Panel init sequence failed: %d\n", ret); > >> + mipi_dsi_dcs_set_display_on_multi(&dsi_ctx); > >> + if (dsi_ctx.accum_err) > >> goto disable_iovcc; > >> - } > > > > Move this after the last mipi_dsi_msleep(), merge with the error > > handling. > > > >> - > >> - ret = mipi_dsi_dcs_set_display_on(dsi); > >> - if (ret < 0) { > >> - dev_err(ctx->dev, "Failed to set display on: %d\n", ret); > >> - goto disable_iovcc; > >> - } > >> > >> msleep(50); > > > > mipi_dsi_msleep() > > Is this necessary though? Converting this msleep to mipi_dsi_msleep and > moving the previous dsi_ctx.accum_err check to below this seems > redundant. If the check is placed above msleep, then we need to only > check for the error once. If its placed below mipi_dsi_msleep, we end up > checking for the error twice (once as written in the code, once in the > code generated by the macro) which is unnecessary.
Yes, uniformity. And the compiler will most likely optimize things away. > > -- > Tejas Vipin -- With best wishes Dmitry
