On 06/02/2019 18:00, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> OK I'll give it a try. Based on a quick glance, we need to still
> check for enabled regulator to avoid unpaired calls.
>
>> static int dsi_dump_dsi_clocks(struct seq_file *s, void *p)
>> @@ -4108,6 +4094,10 @@ static int dsi_display_init_dsi(struct dsi_data *dsi)
>>
>> DSSDBG("PLL OK\n");
>>
>> + // XXX enable the regulator for the lanes
>> + regulator_enable(dsi->vdds_dsi_reg);
>> + dsi->vdds_dsi_enabled = true;
>> +
>
> So the above should only be done if !dsi->vdds_dsi_enabled?
>
>> r = dsi_cio_init(dsi);
>> if (r)
>> goto err2;
>> @@ -4136,6 +4126,10 @@ static int dsi_display_init_dsi(struct dsi_data *dsi)
>> err3:
>> dsi_cio_uninit(dsi);
>> err2:
>> + // XXX disable the regulator for the lanes
>> + regulator_disable(dsi->vdds_dsi_reg);
>> + dsi->vdds_dsi_enabled = false;
>> +
>
> And here only if dsi->vdds_dsi_enabled?
>
>> @@ -4158,7 +4152,12 @@ static void dsi_display_uninit_dsi(struct dsi_data *dsi, bool disconnect_lanes,
>>
>> dss_select_dsi_clk_source(dsi->dss, dsi->module_id, DSS_CLK_SRC_FCK);
>> dsi_cio_uninit(dsi);
>> - dsi_pll_uninit(dsi, disconnect_lanes);
>> + dss_pll_disable(&dsi->pll);
>> +
>> + if (disconnect_lanes) {
>> + regulator_disable(dsi->vdds_dsi_reg);
>> + dsi->vdds_dsi_enabled = false;
>> + }
>> }
>
> Since they would be paired with the conditional handling
> here?
Hmm, yes, I think you're right. And there's already one in dsi_remove(),
which handles the final disable at unload time.
Tomi
--
Texas Instruments Finland Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki.
Y-tunnus/Business ID: 0615521-4. Kotipaikka/Domicile: Helsinki
