Messages in this thread | | | From | Brian Norris <> | Date | Fri, 1 Oct 2021 14:23:29 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] drm/brdige: analogix_dp: Grab runtime PM reference for DP-AUX |
| |
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 1:37 PM Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 02:41:03PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c > > @@ -1632,8 +1632,23 @@ static ssize_t analogix_dpaux_transfer(struct drm_dp_aux *aux, > > struct drm_dp_aux_msg *msg) > > { > > struct analogix_dp_device *dp = to_dp(aux); > > + int ret, ret2; > > > > - return analogix_dp_transfer(dp, msg); > > + ret = analogix_dp_prepare_panel(dp, true, false); > > + if (ret) { > > + DRM_DEV_ERROR(dp->dev, "Failed to prepare panel (%d)\n", ret); > > s/DRM_DEV_ERROR/drm_err/
Sure. Now that I'm looking a second time, I see the header recommends this.
> > + return ret; > > + } > > + > > + pm_runtime_get_sync(dp->dev); > > + ret = analogix_dp_transfer(dp, msg); > > + pm_runtime_put(dp->dev); > > + > > + ret2 = analogix_dp_prepare_panel(dp, false, false); > > + if (ret2) > > + DRM_DEV_ERROR(dp->dev, "Failed to unprepare panel (%d)\n", ret2); > > What's the reasoning for not propagating unprepare failures? I feel like that > should be fair game.
I suppose the underlying reason is laziness, sorry. But a related reason is the we probably should prefer propagating the analogix_dp_transfer() error, if it's non-zero, rather than the unprepare error. That's not too hard to do though, even if it's slightly more awkward.
> > + > > + return ret; > > } > > > > struct analogix_dp_device *
v2 coming.
Regards, Brian
| |