On 12/06/2024 16:52, Doug Anderson wrote:
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... ;-)
Yes, and thanksfully there's a fix for the build failure!
-Doug
