On 6/18/24 7:06 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 5:25 AM Tejas Vipin <tejasvipi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> rm692e5_reset(ctx);
>>>>
>>>> - ret = rm692e5_on(ctx);
>>>> - if (ret < 0) {
>>>> - dev_err(dev, "Failed to initialize panel: %d\n", ret);
>>>> + dsi_ctx.accum_err = rm692e5_on(ctx);
>>>> + if (dsi_ctx.accum_err) {
>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to initialize panel: %d\n",
>>>> dsi_ctx.accum_err);
>>>
>>> I'd probably change rm692e5_on() to take the "dsi_ctx" as a parameter
>>> and then you don't need to declare a new one there.
>>>
>>> ...also, you don't need to add an error message since rm692e5_on()
>>> will have already printed one (since the "multi" style functions
>>> always print error messages for you).
>>
>> I'm guessing that the change about regulator_bulk_enable and
>> rm692e5 should also be applied to all the other panels where
>> similar behavior occurs?
>
> Yeah, I'd say so.
>
>
>>>> gpiod_set_value_cansleep(ctx->reset_gpio, 1);
>>>> regulator_bulk_disable(ARRAY_SIZE(ctx->supplies),
>>>> ctx->supplies);
>>>> - return ret;
>>>> + return dsi_ctx.accum_err;
>>>
>>> Not new for your patch, but it seems odd that we don't do this error
>>> handling (re-assert reset and disable the regulator) for errors later
>>> in the function. Shouldn't it do that? It feels like the error
>>> handling should be in an "err" label and we should end up doing that
>>> any time we return an error code... What do you think?
>>
>> Personally I don't think this is necessary because imo labels
>> only get useful when there's a couple of them and/or they're
>> jumped to multiple times. I don't think either would happen in
>> this particular function. But I guess if you have some convention
>> in mind, then it could be done?
>
> I think mostly my suggestion was just that we should also do the
> gpiod_set_value_cansleep() and regulator_bulk_disable() at the end of
> rm692e5_prepare() if `dsi_ctx.accum_err` is non-zero. Then you've got
> two places doing the same thing: here and at the end of the function.
>
> ...oh, but everything below here is already a no-op if the error is
> set. ...so I guess looking at it closer, my suggestion wouldn't be a
> "goto" but would instead be to just move the gpio/regulator call to
> the end. What do you think?
Yeah, sounds good. I'll be doing that.
>
> -Doug
