Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-165518-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240426235857.3870424-1-dianders@chromium.org>
 <20240426165839.v2.4.Ie94246c30fe95101e0e26dd5f96e976dbeb8f242@changeid>
 <2af446d3-7834-4a6b-897b-b14c6bccff65@linaro.org> <CAD=FV=V=EvEGp4tGDd-UQ1R=XkAwDn04ftd8oWU=UE=3Gi7SLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <87y18w2n6h.fsf@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <87y18w2n6h.fsf@intel.com>
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 08:49:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=X5jBqBgOqtm8nYtEKNHcnJgQDWj+ynS5U7KXuQgHLySg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] drm/mipi-dsi: Introduce mipi_dsi_*_write_seq_multi()
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: neil.armstrong@linaro.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, 
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, lvzhaoxiong@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com, 
	Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@google.com>, Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>, Joel Selvaraj <jo@jsfamily.in>, 
	Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>, 
	Cong Yang <yangcong5@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>, 
	Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>, David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>, 
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>, Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>, 
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 8:39=E2=80=AFAM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.inte=
l.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2024, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 2:38=E2=80=AFAM Neil Armstrong
> > <neil.armstrong@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > +/**
> >> > + * struct mipi_dsi_multi_context - Context to call multiple MIPI DS=
I funcs in a row
> >> > + * @dsi: Pointer to the MIPI DSI device
> >> > + * @accum_err: Storage for the accumulated error over the multiple =
calls. Init
> >> > + *   to 0. If a function encounters an error then the error code wi=
ll be
> >> > + *   stored here. If you call a function and this points to a non-z=
ero
> >> > + *   value then the function will be a noop. This allows calling a =
function
> >> > + *   many times in a row and just checking the error at the end to =
see if
> >> > + *   any of them failed.
> >> > + */
> >> > +
> >> > +struct mipi_dsi_multi_context {
> >> > +     struct mipi_dsi_device *dsi;
> >> > +     int accum_err;
> >> > +};
> >>
> >> I like the design, but having a context struct seems over-engineered w=
hile we could pass
> >> a single int over without encapsulating it with mipi_dsi_multi_context=
.
> >>
> >> void mipi_dsi_dcs_write_buffer_multi(struct mipi_dsi_multi_context *ct=
x,
> >>                                      const void *data, size_t len);
> >> vs
> >> void mipi_dsi_dcs_write_buffer_multi(struct mipi_dsi_device *dsi, int =
*accum_err,
> >>                                      const void *data, size_t len);
> >>
> >> is the same, and it avoids having to declare a mipi_dsi_multi_context =
and set ctx->dsi,
> >> and I'll find it much easier to migrate, just add a &ret and make sure=
 ret is initialized to 0.
> >
> > Yeah, I had the same reaction when Jani suggested the context style
> > [1] and I actually coded it up exactly as you suggest above. I then
> > changed my mind and went with the context. My motivation was that when
> > I tested it I found that using the context produced smaller code.
> > Specifically, from the description of this patch we see we end up
> > with:
> >
> > Total: Before=3D10651, After=3D9663, chg -9.28%
> >
> > ...when I didn't have the context and I had the accum_err then instead
> > of getting ~9% smaller I believe it actually got ~0.5% bigger. This
> > makes some sense as the caller has to pass 4 parameters to each call
> > instead of 3.
> >
> > It's not a giant size difference but it was at least some motivation
> > that helped push me in this direction. I'd also say that when I looked
> > at the code in the end the style grew on me. It's really not too
> > terrible to have one line in your functions that looks like:
> >
> > struct mipi_dsi_multi_context ctx =3D { .dsi =3D boe->dsi };
> >
> > ...and if that becomes the canonical way to do it then it's really
> > hard to accidentally forget to initialize the error value. With the
> > other API it's _very_ easy to forget to initialize the error value and
> > the compiler won't yell at you. It also makes it very obvious to the
> > caller that this function is doing something a little different than
> > most Linux APIs with that error return.
> >
> > So I guess I'd say that I ended up being pretty happy with the
> > "context" even if it does feel a little over engineered and I'd argue
> > to keep it that way. That being said, if you feel strongly about it
> > then we can perhaps get others to chime in to see which style they
> > prefer? Let me know what you think.
> >
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/8734r85tcf.fsf@intel.com
>
> FWIW, I don't feel strongly about this, and I could be persuaded either
> way, but I've got this gut feeling that an extensible context parameter
> might be benefitial future proofing in this case.

I've gone ahead and sent out a v3 where I still leave it as taking
`struct mipi_dsi_multi_context`. Neil: if you feel strongly about it,
I have no problem sending out a v4. I still think that the size
savings of using the context are a good "tiebreaking" factor in
choosing between the two styles... ;-)

-Doug