Re: [PATCH] drm/panel: himax-hx83112a: transition to mipi_dsi wrapped functions

[neil . armstrong]

On 10/09/2024 23:19, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2024 at 1:32 AM Tejas Vipin <tejasvipin76@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 9/7/24 3:53 AM, Jessica Zhang wrote:
> > > On 9/6/2024 3:14 PM, Jessica Zhang wrote:
> > > > On 9/4/2024 7:15 AM, Tejas Vipin wrote:
> > > > > Changes the himax-hx83112a panel to use multi style functions for
> > > > > improved error handling.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Tejas Vipin <tejasvipin76@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Hi Tejas,
> > >
> > > Just a heads up, it seems that this might be a duplicate of this change [1]?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Jessica Zhang
> > >
> > > [1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/612367/?series=138155&rev=1
> >
> > Ah, thanks for letting me know. I hadn't realized someone else had
> > started working on this too.
> >
> > However, I would argue that my patch [2] is a better candidate for merging
> > because of the following reasons:
> >
> > 1) Removes unnecessary error printing:
> > The mipi_dsi_*_multi() functions all have inbuilt error printing which
> > makes printing errors after hx83112a_on unnecessary as is addressed in
> > [2] like so:
> >
> > > -     ret = hx83112a_on(ctx);
> > > +     ret = hx83112a_on(ctx->dsi);
> > >        if (ret < 0) {
> > > -             dev_err(dev, "Failed to initialize panel: %d\n", ret);
> > >                gpiod_set_value_cansleep(ctx->reset_gpio, 1);
> > >                regulator_bulk_disable(ARRAY_SIZE(ctx->supplies), ctx->supplies);
> > > -             return ret;
> > >        }
> >
> > [2] also removes the unnecessary dev_err after regulator_bulk_enable as was
> > addressed in [3] like so:
> >
> > >        ret = regulator_bulk_enable(ARRAY_SIZE(ctx->supplies), ctx->supplies);
> > > -     if (ret < 0) {
> > > -             dev_err(dev, "Failed to enable regulators: %d\n", ret);
> > > +     if (ret < 0)
> > >                return ret;
> > > -     }
> >
> > 2) Better formatting
> >
> > The mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq_multi statements in [1] aren't formatted
> > quite right according to what has been done so far. They are written as
> > such in [1]:
> >
> > > +     mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq_multi(&dsi_ctx, HX83112A_SETTP1,
> > >                               0x02, 0x00, 0xa8, 0x01, 0xa8, 0x0d, 0xa4, 0x0e);
> >
> > Where they should be written as such in [2]:
> >
> > > +     mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq_multi(&dsi_ctx, HX83112A_SETTP1,
> > > +                                  0x02, 0x00, 0xa8, 0x01, 0xa8, 0x0d, 0xa4, 0x0e);
> >
> > All in all, the module generated using my patch ends up being a teensy
> > bit smaller (1% smaller). But if chronology is what is important, then
> > it would at least be nice to see the above changes as part of Abhishek's
> > patch too. And I'll be sure to look at the mail in the drm inbox now
> > onwards :p
> >
> > [1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/612367/?series=138155&rev=1
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240904141521.554451-1-tejasvipin76@xxxxxxxxx/
> > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAD=FV=XRZKL_ppjUKDK61fQkWhHiQCJLfmVBS7wSo4sUux2g8Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
> I would tend to agree that Tejas's patch looks slightly better, but
> Abhishek's patch appears to have been posted first.
>
> Neil: any idea what to do here? Maybe a Co-Developed-by or something?
> ...or we could land Abhishek and Tejas could post a followup for the
> extra cleanup?

Yeah usually I take the first one when they are equal, but indeed Tejas
cleanup up a little further and better aligned the parameters so I think
Tejas's one is a better looking version.

In this case we should apply Teja's one, nothing personal Abhishek!

> Abhishek: are you planning to post more _multi cleanups? If so, please
> make sure to CC Tejas (who has been posting a bunch of them) and
> perhaps me since I've been helping to review them a bit.
>
> -Doug