Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-174702-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240509015207.3271370-1-yangcong5@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com>
 <20240509015207.3271370-3-yangcong5@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240509015207.3271370-3-yangcong5@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com>
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 09:42:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=UaTj_ojJvc2T22e49MhB-zp1+Z_tp9uULS0r8MesUd2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] drm/panel: himax-hx83102: Break out as separate driver
To: Cong Yang <yangcong5@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com>
Cc: sam@ravnborg.org, neil.armstrong@linaro.org, daniel@ffwll.ch, 
	linus.walleij@linaro.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, 
	robh+dt@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, airlied@gmail.com, 
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xuxinxiong@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 6:53=E2=80=AFPM Cong Yang
<yangcong5@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com> wrote:
>
> +static int hx83102_enable(struct drm_panel *panel)
> +{
> +       struct hx83102 *ctx =3D panel_to_hx83102(panel);
> +       struct mipi_dsi_device *dsi =3D ctx->dsi;
> +       struct device *dev =3D &dsi->dev;
> +       int ret;
> +
> +       ret =3D mipi_dsi_dcs_exit_sleep_mode(dsi);
> +       if (ret) {
> +               dev_err(dev, "Failed to exit sleep mode: %d\n", ret);
> +               return ret;
> +       }
> +
> +       msleep(120);
> +
> +       ret =3D mipi_dsi_dcs_set_display_on(dsi);
> +       if (ret) {
> +               dev_err(dev, "Failed to turn on the display: %d\n", ret);
> +               return ret;
> +       }

FWIW, I think that the mipi_dsi_dcs_exit_sleep_mode(), msleep(120),
and mipi_dsi_dcs_set_display_on() should also be in the prepare() to
match how they were in the boe-tv101wum-nl6.c driver, right? Then the
enable() would be left with just the simple "msleep(130)".

I know it doesn't make much difference and it probably doesn't matter
and maybe I'm just being a little nitpicky, but given that the
prepare() and enable() functions are unique phases I'd rather be
explicit if we've moving something from one phase to the other.


-Doug