Hi,
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 7:34 AM <neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 12/06/2024 16:21, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 6:37 AM Tejas Vipin <tejasvipin76@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> ctx would be better off treated as a pointer to account for most of its
> >> usage so far, and brackets should be added to account for operator
> >> precedence for correct evaluation.
> >>
> >> Fixes: f79d6d28d8fe7 ("drm/mipi-dsi: wrap more functions for streamline handling")
> >> Signed-off-by: Tejas Vipin <tejasvipin76@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> include/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.h | 2 +-
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > Yeah. Looking closer at the history, it looks like it was always
> > intended to be a pointer since the first users all used it as a
> > pointer.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > I've also compile-tested all the panels currently using mipi_dsi_msleep().
> >
> > Neil: Given that this is a correctness thing, I'd rather see this land
> > sooner rather than later. If you agree, maybe you can land these two
> > patches whenever you're comfortable with them?
>
> Applying them, but inverting them, fix should go first.
Well, they're both fixes, and inverting them means that you get a
compile failure across several panels if you happen to be bisecting
and land on the first commit, but it doesn't really matter. I guess
the compile failure is maybe a benefit given that they were not doing
their delays properly... ;-)
-Doug
