Hi, On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 12:48 AM Neil Armstrong <neil.armstr...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 01/05/2024 17:41, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > The consensus of many DRM folks is that we want to move away from DSI > > drivers defining tables of init commands. Instead, we want to move to > > init functions that can use common DRM functions. The issue thus far > > has been that using the macros mipi_dsi_generic_write_seq() and > > mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq() bloats the driver using them. > > > > While trying to solve bloat, we realized that the majority of the it > > was easy to solve. This series solves the bloat for existing drivers > > by moving the printout outside of the macro. > > > > During discussion of my v1 patch to fix the bloat [1], we also decided > > that we really want to change the way that drivers deal with init > > sequences to make it clearer. In addition to being cleaner, a side > > effect of moving drivers to the new style reduces bloat _even more_. > > > > This series also contains a few minor fixes / cleanups that I found > > along the way. > > > > This series converts four drivers over to the new > > mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq_multi() function. Not all conversions have been > > tested, but hopefully they are straightforward enough. I'd appreciate > > testing. > > > > NOTE: In v3 I tried to incorporate the feedback from v2. I also > > converted the other two panels I could find that used table-based > > initialization. > > > > [1] > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240424172017.1.Id15fae80582bc74a0d4f1338987fa375738f45b9@changeid > > > > Changes in v3: > > - ("mipi_dsi_*_write functions don't need to ratelimit...") moved earlier. > > - Add a TODO item for cleaning up the deprecated macros/functions. > > - Fix spacing of init function. > > - Inline kerneldoc comments for struct mipi_dsi_multi_context. > > - Rebased upon patch to remove ratelimit of prints. > > - Remove an unneeded error print. > > - Squash boe-tv101wum-nl6 lowercase patch into main patch > > - Use %zd in print instead of casting errors to int. > > - drm/panel: ili9882t: Don't use a table for initting panels > > - drm/panel: innolux-p079zca: Don't use a table for initting panels > > > > Changes in v2: > > - Add some comments to the macros about printing and returning. > > - Change the way err value is handled in prep for next patch. > > - Modify commit message now that this is part of a series. > > - Rebased upon patches to avoid theoretical int overflow. > > - drm/mipi-dsi: Fix theoretical int overflow in mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq() > > - drm/mipi-dsi: Fix theoretical int overflow in mipi_dsi_generic_write_seq() > > - drm/mipi-dsi: Introduce mipi_dsi_*_write_seq_multi() > > - drm/mipi-dsi: mipi_dsi_*_write functions don't need to ratelimit prints > > - drm/panel: boe-tv101wum-nl6: Convert hex to lowercase > > - drm/panel: boe-tv101wum-nl6: Don't use a table for initting commands > > - drm/panel: novatek-nt36672e: Switch to mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq_multi() > > > > Douglas Anderson (9): > > drm/mipi-dsi: Fix theoretical int overflow in mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq() > > drm/mipi-dsi: Fix theoretical int overflow in > > mipi_dsi_generic_write_seq() > > drm/mipi-dsi: mipi_dsi_*_write functions don't need to ratelimit > > prints > > drm/mipi-dsi: Reduce driver bloat of mipi_dsi_*_write_seq() > > drm/mipi-dsi: Introduce mipi_dsi_*_write_seq_multi() > > drm/panel: novatek-nt36672e: Switch to mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq_multi() > > drm/panel: boe-tv101wum-nl6: Don't use a table for initting panels > > drm/panel: ili9882t: Don't use a table for initting panels > > drm/panel: innolux-p079zca: Don't use a table for initting panels > > Thanks Doug! > > I think we all agree on the core changes, now I think we can wait a few weeks > and try to get some test feedbacks on the indirectly and directly affected > panels, drm-misc-next won't be merged into linux-next until v6.10-rc1 anyway > so we have some time to test on our boards.
Great! Just to be clear, are you suggesting that we leave these patches on the lists for a few weeks before landing in drm-misc-next, or are you suggesting that it's safe to land them in drm-misc-next because it won't make it to linuxnext for a while anyway? I assume the former (AKA leave it on the lists for a while) but just want to be clear. ;-) There's nothing terribly urgent about these patches except that they are blocking Cong Yang's patch series [0] and lvzhaoxiong's patch series [1]. I think it would be fine for them to send out their patch series with mine marked as a dependency so we can finish reviewing their series and then when mine lands theirs will be good to go too. Maybe we can aim for 2 weeks of stewing on the list if there are no issues during that time? I know landing in drm-misc during this time won't help get into mainline faster, but with ChromeOS's "upstream first" policy it saves us a bunch of headache if we can land things in our tree from a maintainer tree with stable git hashes (like drm-misc-next) instead of landing from a mailing list. Certainly that doesn't mean we want to rush patches in before they're ready, but I just want to say that there is still some benefit in getting the patches landed sooner rather than later. :-) [0] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240424023010.2099949-1-yangco...@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240418081548.12160-3-lvzhaoxi...@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com
