lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 1/3] drm/panel: refactor INNOLUX P079ZCA panel driver
Hi Lin,

On 14 March 2018 at 09:12, Lin Huang <hl@rock-chips.com> wrote:
> From: huang lin <hl@rock-chips.com>
>
> Refactor Innolux P079ZCA panel driver, let it support
> multi panel.
>
> Change-Id: If89be5e56dba8cb498e2d50c1bbeb0e8016123a2
> Signed-off-by: Lin Huang <hl@rock-chips.com>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Change regulator property name to meet the panel datasheet
> Changes in v3:
> - this patch only refactor P079ZCA panel to support multi panel, support P097PFG panel in another patch
> Changes in v4:
> - Modify the patch which suggest by Thierry
>
Thanks for splitting this up. I think there's another piece that fell
through the cracks.
I'm not deeply familiar with the driver, so just sharing some quick notes.


> struct innolux_panel {
> struct drm_panel base;
> struct mipi_dsi_device *link;
> + const struct panel_desc *desc;
>
> struct backlight_device *backlight;
> - struct regulator *supply;
> + struct regulator *vddi;

> + struct regulator *avdd;
> + struct regulator *avee;
These two seem are new addition, as opposed to a dummy refactor.
Are they optional, does one need them for the existing panel (separate
patch?) or only for the new one (squash with the new panel code)?


> struct gpio_desc *enable_gpio;
>
> bool prepared;
> @@ -77,9 +93,9 @@ static int innolux_panel_unprepare(struct drm_panel *panel)
> /* T8: 80ms - 1000ms */
> msleep(80);
>
> - err = regulator_disable(innolux->supply);
> - if (err < 0)
> - return err;
Good call on dropping the early return here.


> @@ -207,19 +248,28 @@ static const struct drm_panel_funcs innolux_panel_funcs = {

>
> - innolux->supply = devm_regulator_get(dev, "power");
> - if (IS_ERR(innolux->supply))
> - return PTR_ERR(innolux->supply);
> + innolux = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*innolux), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!innolux)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + innolux->desc = desc;
> + innolux->vddi = devm_regulator_get(dev, "power");
> + innolux->avdd = devm_regulator_get(dev, "avdd");
> + innolux->avee = devm_regulator_get(dev, "avee");
>
AFAICT devm_regulator_get returns a pointer which is unsuitable to be
passed into regulator_{enable,disable}.
Hence, the IS_ERR check should stay. If any of the regulators are
optional, you want to call regulator_{enable,disable} only as
applicable.


> @@ -318,5 +377,6 @@ static struct mipi_dsi_driver innolux_panel_driver = {
> module_mipi_dsi_driver(innolux_panel_driver);
>
> MODULE_AUTHOR("Chris Zhong <zyw@rock-chips.com>");
> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Lin Huang <hl@rock-chips.com>");
I don't think refactoring existing code classify as being the module author.
Then again, I could be wrong.

HTH
Emil

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-14 13:02    [W:0.114 / U:0.404 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site