On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 02:15:33PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> > - /*
> > - * TODO: we do not always have to do the BTA sync, for example
> > - * we can improve performance by setting the update window
> > - * information without sending BTA sync between the commands.
> > - * In that case we can return early.
> > - */
> > + /* TODO: find out if more needs to be done for MIPI_DSI_MSG_REQ_ACK */
> > - r = dsi_vc_send_bta_sync(dssdev, vc);
> > - if (r) {
> > - DSSERR("bta sync failed\n");
> > - return r;
> > + if (msg->flags & MIPI_DSI_MSG_REQ_ACK) {
> > + r = dsi_vc_send_bta_sync(dssdev, vc);
> > + if (r) {
> > + DSSERR("bta sync failed\n");
> > + return r;
> > + }
> > }
>
> The dsi_vc_send_bta_sync() function does dsi_get_errors(), which we now
> don't always do here. I think that might cause any errors to be left there,
> which would trigger error handling on next read or write-with-bta.
>
> _omap_dsi_host_transfer forward declaration can now be remove.
I will produce a v6, when I have the possibility to test again,
probably on Monday.
>
> I don't have HW to test this, but other than the above, it looks reasonable.
> Although I have to say, based on my past experience, it's also very easy to
> break a use case =).
>
Probably these usecases should use MIPI_DSI_MSG_REQ_ACK.
Regards,
Andreas
