Hi, Doug Anderson <diand...@chromium.org> 于2024年5月10日周五 00:42写道: > > Hi, > > On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 6:53 PM Cong Yang > <yangco...@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com> wrote: > > > > +static int hx83102_enable(struct drm_panel *panel) > > +{ > > + struct hx83102 *ctx = panel_to_hx83102(panel); > > + struct mipi_dsi_device *dsi = ctx->dsi; > > + struct device *dev = &dsi->dev; > > + int ret; > > + > > + ret = mipi_dsi_dcs_exit_sleep_mode(dsi); > > + if (ret) { > > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to exit sleep mode: %d\n", ret); > > + return ret; > > + } > > + > > + msleep(120); > > + > > + ret = mipi_dsi_dcs_set_display_on(dsi); > > + if (ret) { > > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to turn on the display: %d\n", ret); > > + return ret; > > + } > > FWIW, I think that the mipi_dsi_dcs_exit_sleep_mode(), msleep(120), > and mipi_dsi_dcs_set_display_on() should also be in the prepare() to > match how they were in the boe-tv101wum-nl6.c driver, right? Then the > enable() would be left with just the simple "msleep(130)". > > I know it doesn't make much difference and it probably doesn't matter > and maybe I'm just being a little nitpicky, but given that the > prepare() and enable() functions are unique phases I'd rather be > explicit if we've moving something from one phase to the other.
Yes, if it is consistent with the boe-tv101wum-nl6.c driver, then it should be moved to prepare(). However, I was working from the driver readability, enable() corresponds to 0x11 & 0x29. disable() corresponds to 0x28 & 0x10. .. Ok, I'll be happy to send V6 version to fix that, thanks! > > > -Doug