Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/omap: panel-tpo-td028ttec1: add backlight support

[Andreas Kemnade]

Hi,

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 10:13:46 +0200
Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 19/01/2019 20:21, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> > This panel has a backlight, so fetch it from devicetree using the
> > as documented in panel-common.txt. It is implemented the same way as in  
> 
> Extra words above, or maybe some are missing...
> 
oops, 
This panel has a backlight, so fetch it from devicetree using the properties
as documented in panel-common.txt. It is implemented the same way as in 
panel-dpi.c


> > panel-dpi.c
> > This ensures the backlight is also disabled when the display is
> > turned off like when doing xset dpms force off.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  .../gpu/drm/omapdrm/displays/panel-tpo-td028ttec1.c    | 18 +++++++++++++++---
> >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/displays/panel-tpo-td028ttec1.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/displays/panel-tpo-td028ttec1.c
> > index 7ddc8c574a61..f326ba9dcf62 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/displays/panel-tpo-td028ttec1.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/displays/panel-tpo-td028ttec1.c
> > @@ -35,6 +35,8 @@ struct panel_drv_data {
> >  
> >  	struct videomode vm;
> >  
> > +	struct backlight_device *backlight;
> > +
> >  	struct spi_device *spi_dev;
> >  };
> >  
> > @@ -268,6 +270,8 @@ static int td028ttec1_panel_enable(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
> >  
> >  	r |= jbt_ret_write_0(ddata, JBT_REG_DISPLAY_ON);
> >  
> > +	backlight_enable(ddata->backlight);
> > +
> >  	dssdev->state = OMAP_DSS_DISPLAY_ACTIVE;
> >  
> >  transfer_err:
> > @@ -283,6 +287,8 @@ static void td028ttec1_panel_disable(struct omap_dss_device *dssdev)
> >  	if (!omapdss_device_is_enabled(dssdev))
> >  		return;
> >  
> > +	backlight_disable(ddata->backlight);
> > +
> >  	dev_dbg(dssdev->dev, "td028ttec1_panel_disable()\n");
> >  
> >  	jbt_ret_write_0(ddata, JBT_REG_DISPLAY_OFF);
> > @@ -321,6 +327,15 @@ static int td028ttec1_panel_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> >  
> >  	dev_dbg(&spi->dev, "%s\n", __func__);
> >  
> > +	ddata = devm_kzalloc(&spi->dev, sizeof(*ddata), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (ddata == NULL)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +	ddata->backlight = devm_of_find_backlight(&spi->dev);
> > +
> > +	if (IS_ERR(ddata->backlight))
> > +		return PTR_ERR(ddata->backlight);
> > +  
> 
> Is there a reason for moving the ddata alloc here, instead of keeping it
> where it was?
> 
Well, I was just unsure if the spi_setup needs to be undone on error, so I
moved things around. But the kzalloc() error check would face the same problem
and other error checks further on, too.

So I can rather keep it as is.

I will send a v2.

Regards,
Andreas

Attachment: pgpxBbPyW8gEk.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature