Hi,
Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 于2024年5月10日周五 00:42写道：
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 6:53 PM Cong Yang
> <yangcong5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > +static int hx83102_enable(struct drm_panel *panel)
> > +{
> > + struct hx83102 *ctx = panel_to_hx83102(panel);
> > + struct mipi_dsi_device *dsi = ctx->dsi;
> > + struct device *dev = &dsi->dev;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = 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 = 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.
Yes, if it is consistent with the boe-tv101wum-nl6.c driver, then it
should be moved to prepare().
However, I was working from the driver readability,
enable() corresponds to 0x11 & 0x29.
disable() corresponds to 0x28 & 0x10.
..
Ok, I'll be happy to send V6 version to fix that, thanks!
>
>
> -Doug
