On 20/06/2024 13:42, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 09:43:05AM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 19/06/2024 22:32, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Hi Jacopo,
Thank you for the patch.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 12:22:16PM +0200, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
From: Phong Hoang <phong.hoang.wz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Add a check to the register access function when attaching a bridge
device.
I think the desc is missing the "why". I'm guessing it's the first
register access to the IC, and thus verifies that it is accessible.
Isn't it a good idea in general to always check if I2C reads succeeded ?
It is. But if there are tens of other i2c accesses for which the return
value is ignored, the question remains: why this single one was
specifically fixed?
Tomi
Signed-off-by: Phong Hoang <phong.hoang.wz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo.mondi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c | 6 +++++-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
index 84698a0b27a8..b7df53577987 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/ti-sn65dsi86.c
@@ -696,6 +696,7 @@ static struct ti_sn65dsi86 *bridge_to_ti_sn65dsi86(struct drm_bridge *bridge)
static int ti_sn_attach_host(struct auxiliary_device *adev, struct ti_sn65dsi86 *pdata)
{
+ int ret;
int val;
struct mipi_dsi_host *host;
struct mipi_dsi_device *dsi;
@@ -720,8 +721,11 @@ static int ti_sn_attach_host(struct auxiliary_device *adev, struct ti_sn65dsi86
/* check if continuous dsi clock is required or not */
pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
- regmap_read(pdata->regmap, SN_DPPLL_SRC_REG, &val);
+ ret = regmap_read(pdata->regmap, SN_DPPLL_SRC_REG, &val);
pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(dev);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
if (!(val & DPPLL_CLK_SRC_DSICLK))
dsi->mode_flags |= MIPI_DSI_CLOCK_NON_CONTINUOUS;
