On 6/18/24 1:36 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 2:40 AM Tejas Vipin <tejasvipin76@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> @@ -168,48 +147,38 @@ static int rm692e5_prepare(struct drm_panel *panel)
>> struct rm692e5_panel *ctx = to_rm692e5_panel(panel);
>> struct drm_dsc_picture_parameter_set pps;
>> struct device *dev = &ctx->dsi->dev;
>> - int ret;
>> + struct mipi_dsi_multi_context dsi_ctx = { .dsi = ctx->dsi };
>>
>> - ret = regulator_bulk_enable(ARRAY_SIZE(ctx->supplies), ctx->supplies);
>> - if (ret < 0) {
>> - dev_err(dev, "Failed to enable regulators: %d\n", ret);
>> - return ret;
>> + dsi_ctx.accum_err = regulator_bulk_enable(ARRAY_SIZE(ctx->supplies), ctx->supplies);
>> + if (dsi_ctx.accum_err) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to enable regulators: %d\n", dsi_ctx.accum_err);
>> + return dsi_ctx.accum_err;
>> }
>
> It would be my preference to get rid of the error print here since
> regulator_bulk_enable() already prints an error message.
>
>
>> rm692e5_reset(ctx);
>>
>> - ret = rm692e5_on(ctx);
>> - if (ret < 0) {
>> - dev_err(dev, "Failed to initialize panel: %d\n", ret);
>> + dsi_ctx.accum_err = rm692e5_on(ctx);
>> + if (dsi_ctx.accum_err) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to initialize panel: %d\n", dsi_ctx.accum_err);
>
> I'd probably change rm692e5_on() to take the "dsi_ctx" as a parameter
> and then you don't need to declare a new one there.
>
> ...also, you don't need to add an error message since rm692e5_on()
> will have already printed one (since the "multi" style functions
> always print error messages for you).
I'm guessing that the change about regulator_bulk_enable and
rm692e5 should also be applied to all the other panels where
similar behavior occurs?
>
>
>
>> gpiod_set_value_cansleep(ctx->reset_gpio, 1);
>> regulator_bulk_disable(ARRAY_SIZE(ctx->supplies), ctx->supplies);
>> - return ret;
>> + return dsi_ctx.accum_err;
>
> Not new for your patch, but it seems odd that we don't do this error
> handling (re-assert reset and disable the regulator) for errors later
> in the function. Shouldn't it do that? It feels like the error
> handling should be in an "err" label and we should end up doing that
> any time we return an error code... What do you think?
Personally I don't think this is necessary because imo labels
only get useful when there's a couple of them and/or they're
jumped to multiple times. I don't think either would happen in
this particular function. But I guess if you have some convention
in mind, then it could be done?
>
>
> -Doug
