lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 1/3] drm/panel: refactor INNOLUX P079ZCA panel driver
From
Date
Hi Emil,


On Monday, March 19, 2018 09:09 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 15 March 2018 at 02:35, hl <hl@rock-chips.com> wrote:
>> Hi Emil,
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 08:02 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> devm_regulator_get() will use dummy_regulator if there not regulator pass to
>> driver, so it not affect regulator_{enable, disable}.
> One of us is getting confused here:
> devm_regulator_get does not _use_ a regulator, it returns a pointer to
> a regulator, right?
>
> According to the 4.16-rc6 codebase - one error
> returns a ERR_PTR [1].
devm_regulator_get() will not reurn a ERR_PTR,  it will pass NORMAL_GET
mode to
_regulator_get() when you call devm_regulator_get(), and with following
code:


rdev = regulator_dev_lookup(dev, id);
    if (IS_ERR(rdev)) {
.....
......
    switch (get_type) {
        case NORMAL_GET:
            /*
             * Assume that a regulator is physically present and
             * enabled, even if it isn't hooked up, and just
             * provide a dummy.
             */
            dev_warn(dev,
                 "%s supply %s not found, using dummy regulator\n",
                 devname, id);
            rdev = dummy_regulator_rdev;
            get_device(&rdev->dev);
            break;
...
...
}
....
regulator = create_regulator(rdev, dev, id);
...

it wil get a dummy_regulator for it.



> With the pointer dereferenced in regulator_enable [2], without a
> IS_ERR check, hence thing will go boom(?)
>
>> These three regulator are
>> optional,
>> the p079zca will use "power" and ,
>> so i think it better not to check ERR here.
>>
> What should happen if p079zca is missing "power" or p097pgf - "avdd" and "avee"?
> Obviously the latter two should be introduced with the p097pgf support.
i think it need dts to make sure configure the power node correct, if
missing
"power" node fo p079zca or "avdd" "avee" node for p097pgf, the panel can
not work, but do not affcet other driver, the kernel do not crash(as i
explain before and i also test it).
>
> HTH
> Emil
>
> [1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v4.16-rc6/source/drivers/regulator/devres.c#L27
> [2] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v4.16-rc6/source/drivers/regulator/core.c#L2189
>
>
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-20 07:25    [W:0.190 / U:0.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site