Hi,
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 9:47 PM Anusha Srivatsa <asrivats@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> @@ -181,24 +162,15 @@ static int r63353_panel_prepare(struct drm_panel *panel)
> static int r63353_panel_deactivate(struct r63353_panel *rpanel)
> {
> struct mipi_dsi_device *dsi = rpanel->dsi;
> - struct device *dev = &dsi->dev;
> - int ret;
> + struct mipi_dsi_multi_context dsi_ctx = { .dsi = dsi };
>
> - ret = mipi_dsi_dcs_set_display_off(dsi);
> - if (ret < 0) {
> - dev_err(dev, "Failed to set display OFF (%d)\n", ret);
> - return ret;
> - }
> + mipi_dsi_dcs_set_display_off_multi(&dsi_ctx);
>
> - usleep_range(5000, 10000);
> + mipi_dsi_usleep_range(&dsi_ctx, 5000, 10000);
>
> - ret = mipi_dsi_dcs_enter_sleep_mode(dsi);
> - if (ret < 0) {
> - dev_err(dev, "Failed to enter sleep mode (%d)\n", ret);
> - return ret;
> - }
> + mipi_dsi_dcs_enter_sleep_mode_multi(&dsi_ctx);
>
> - return 0;
> + return dsi_ctx.accum_err;
nit: the one caller of r63353_panel_deactivate() doesn't actually look
at the error code, so this could be a function that returns "void".
That was true even before your patch, though. I wouldn't mind a
followup patch that fixed this. ;-)
In any case, the patch looks reasonable to me now.
Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Happy for someone else to apply it if they want. If not, I'll snooze
this for ~a week to give others a chance to comment and then plan to
push to drm-misc-next.
-Doug
