On 10/29/24 12:24 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 9:00 PM Tejas Vipin <tejasvipin76@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> @@ -418,79 +398,42 @@ static const struct ltk050h3146w_desc ltk050h3146w_data = {
>> MIPI_DSI_MODE_LPM | MIPI_DSI_MODE_NO_EOT_PACKET,
>> };
>>
>> -static int ltk050h3146w_a2_select_page(struct ltk050h3146w *ctx, int page)
>> +static void ltk050h3146w_a2_select_page(struct mipi_dsi_multi_context *dsi_ctx, int page)
>> {
>> - struct mipi_dsi_device *dsi = to_mipi_dsi_device(ctx->dev);
>> - u8 d[3] = { 0x98, 0x81, page };
>> + u8 d[4] = { 0xff, 0x98, 0x81, page };
>>
>> - return mipi_dsi_dcs_write(dsi, 0xff, d, ARRAY_SIZE(d));
>> + mipi_dsi_dcs_write_buffer_multi(dsi_ctx, d, ARRAY_SIZE(d));
>
> FWIW: the above might be slightly better as:
>
> mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq_multi(dsi_ctx, 0xff, 0x98, 0x81, page);
>
> That would make it more documenting that the 0xff is the "cmd", has
> fewer lines of code, and also gets the array marked as "static const"
> which might make the compiler slightly more efficient. ;-)
>
> Not really a huge deal, though.
>
I did try this initially, but got an error because of page not being a
compile time constant. Not sure how I should handle this.
> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
Tejas Vipin
