Hi Emil,
On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 08:02 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
Hi Lin,
On 14 March 2018 at 09:12, Lin Huang <hl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: huang lin <hl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Refactor Innolux P079ZCA panel driver, let it support
multi panel.
Change-Id: If89be5e56dba8cb498e2d50c1bbeb0e8016123a2
Signed-off-by: Lin Huang <hl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Changes in v2:
- Change regulator property name to meet the panel datasheet
Changes in v3:
- this patch only refactor P079ZCA panel to support multi panel, support P097PFG panel in another patch
Changes in v4:
- Modify the patch which suggest by Thierry
Thanks for splitting this up. I think there's another piece that fell
through the cracks.
I'm not deeply familiar with the driver, so just sharing some quick notes.
struct innolux_panel {
struct drm_panel base;
struct mipi_dsi_device *link;
+ const struct panel_desc *desc;
struct backlight_device *backlight;
- struct regulator *supply;
+ struct regulator *vddi;
+ struct regulator *avdd;
+ struct regulator *avee;
These two seem are new addition, as opposed to a dummy refactor.
Are they optional, does one need them for the existing panel (separate
patch?) or only for the new one (squash with the new panel code)?
struct gpio_desc *enable_gpio;
bool prepared;
@@ -77,9 +93,9 @@ static int innolux_panel_unprepare(struct drm_panel *panel)
/* T8: 80ms - 1000ms */
msleep(80);
- err = regulator_disable(innolux->supply);
- if (err < 0)
- return err;
Good call on dropping the early return here.
@@ -207,19 +248,28 @@ static const struct drm_panel_funcs innolux_panel_funcs = {
- innolux->supply = devm_regulator_get(dev, "power");
- if (IS_ERR(innolux->supply))
- return PTR_ERR(innolux->supply);
+ innolux = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*innolux), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!innolux)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ innolux->desc = desc;
+ innolux->vddi = devm_regulator_get(dev, "power");
+ innolux->avdd = devm_regulator_get(dev, "avdd");
+ innolux->avee = devm_regulator_get(dev, "avee");
AFAICT devm_regulator_get returns a pointer which is unsuitable to be
passed into regulator_{enable,disable}.
Hence, the IS_ERR check should stay. If any of the regulators are
optional, you want to call regulator_{enable,disable} only as
applicable.
devm_regulator_get() will use dummy_regulator if there not regulator pass to driver,
so it not affect regulator_{enable, disable}. These three regulator are optional,
the p079zca will use "power" and p097pgf will use "avdd" and "avee",
so i think it better not to check ERR here.
@@ -318,5 +377,6 @@ static struct mipi_dsi_driver innolux_panel_driver = {
module_mipi_dsi_driver(innolux_panel_driver);
MODULE_AUTHOR("Chris Zhong <zyw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>");
+MODULE_AUTHOR("Lin Huang <hl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>");
I don't think refactoring existing code classify as being the module author.
Then again, I could be wrong.
HTH
Emil
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
