[PATCH 00/20] drm/panel: Move to using mipi_dsi_*_multi() variants when available

[Anusha Srivatsa]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 8:35 AM Maxime Ripard <mripard at kernel.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 11:11:33AM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 04:52:53PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 02:14:43PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 10:55:49AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 08:26:02AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 12:44 PM Anusha Srivatsa <
> asrivats at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A lot of mipi API are deprecated and have a _multi() variant
> > > > > > > which is the preferred way forward. This covers  TODO in the
> > > > > > > gpu Documentation:[1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > An incomplete effort was made in the previous version
> > > > > > > to address this[2]. It removed on the mipi_dsi_dcs_write_seq()
> > > > > > > and mipi_dsi_generic_write_seq_multi() with the respective
> > > > > > > replacemts and not the rest of the API.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You didn't seem to take most of the suggestions I gave in
> response to
> > > > > > your v1 [3]. Specifically:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > a) I asked that you CC Tejas. I've added him again.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > b) I asked that you CC me on the whole patch series, which you
> didn't
> > > > > > do. I can find them, but I'd find it convenient in this case for
> them
> > > > > > to be in my Inbox.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The first patch conflicts with what Tejas already landed in
> > > > > > drm-misc-next. See commit 8025f23728e9 ("drm/panel:
> > > > > > xinpeng-xpp055c272: transition to mipi_dsi wrapped functions").
> The
> > > > > > second patch _also_ conflicts with what Tejas already landed. See
> > > > > > commit f4dd4cb79f9e ("drm/panel: visionox-r66451: transition to
> > > > > > mipi_dsi wrapped functions"). Later patches also also conflict.
> See
> > > > > > commit 0d6c9edf9e5b ("drm/panel: ebbg-ft8719: transition to
> mipi_dsi
> > > > > > wrapped functions"), commit ce8c69ec90ca ("drm/panel:
> > > > > > samsung-s6e88a0-ams452ef01: transition to mipi_dsi wrapped
> > > > > > functions"), and commit 7e3bf00047cd ("drm/panel:
> sharp-ls060t1sx01:
> > > > > > transition to mipi_dsi wrapped functions"). Maybe you should
> sync up
> > > > > > with drm-misc-next before submitting.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, you should definitely work from drm-misc-next there, and sync
> with
> > > > > Tejas.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I also questioned whether this really made sense to try to do
> with a
> > > > > > Coccinelle script and I still don't think so. It looks like
> Dmitry has
> > > > > > already reviewed the first few of your patches and has repeated
> my
> > > > > > advice. If you want to help with the effort of addressing this
> TODO
> > > > > > item then that's great, but I'll stop reviewing (and start
> silently
> > > > > > deleting) any future submissions of yours that say that they're
> done
> > > > > > entirely with a Coccinelle script unless you address this point
> and
> > > > > > convince me that your Coccinelle script is really smart enough to
> > > > > > handle all the corner cases. I'll also assert that you should
> review
> > > > > > Tejas's submissions to see how these conversions are expected to
> go.
> > > > >
> > > > > I couldn't find that in your first answer though. What corner
> cases do
> > > > > you have in mind, and why do you think coccinelle can't handle
> them?
> > > >
> > > > As can be seen from the reviews:
> > > >
> > > > - sleeps between DSI calls
> > > > - properly propagating the error at the end of the function
> > >
> > > These two are legitimate feedback, but I don't see how coccinelle
> cannot
> > > deal with them.
> >
> > Maybe it can. both issues were pointed out during review of the first
> > series, there was no improvement here. I'd really ask to perform
> > conversion of a single driver, so that the script (or post-script
> > fixups) can be improved. I'd still expect that Anusha actually reviews
> > the changed driver before posting it and verifies that there is no
> > regression in the logic / error reporting.
>
> Yeah, it makes sense, thanks!
>

Dmitry, Doug,

Sorry for the late response, I was out. A lot of the confusion and effort
could have been saved had I worked on the -misc branch. My bad.  WIll keep
the rest of the feedback in mind and address one driver at a time to avoid
an overhaul of changes. Thanks for taking time out to guide me in the right
direction!

Anusha

> Maxime
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20250219/edf94975/attachment-0001.htm>