Hi, Sorry for delayed response, still investigating why these mails didn't reach my inbox as expected..
-----Original Message----- From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> Sent: den 19 april 2024 01:06 To: Johan Adolfsson <[email protected]>; Neil Armstrong <[email protected]>; Jessica Zhang <[email protected]>; Sam Ravnborg <[email protected]>; Maarten Lankhorst <[email protected]>; Maxime Ripard <[email protected]>; Thomas Zimmermann <[email protected]>; David Airlie <[email protected]>; Daniel Vetter <[email protected]>; Rob Herring <[email protected]>; Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Conor Dooley <[email protected]>; Thierry Reding <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; kernel <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/panel: panel-simple: Add generic panel-dsi driver On 18/04/2024 16:01, Johan Adolfsson wrote: > Add generic panel-dsi panel, similar to panel-dpi that can have it's > timing, lanes and flags overridden by devicetree. > Add some dev_err() and dev_warn() calls. > ... >> /* sentinel */ >> } >> @@ -4992,17 +5051,28 @@ static int panel_simple_dsi_probe(struct >> mipi_dsi_device *dsi) >> return -ENODEV; >> >> err = panel_simple_probe(&dsi->dev, &desc->desc); >> + if (err) >> + dev_err(&dsi->dev, "%s: err %i\n", __func__, err); >This looks like debugging code. I added it since you don't really get any good hints on where things fails if they do it. Debugging code or not depends on the definition I guess - it helps the user track down a faulty devicetree, or as in the case below mismatch with the DSI driver. ... >> dsi->format = desc->format; >> dsi->lanes = desc->lanes; >> + of_property_read_u32(dsi->dev.of_node, "lanes", &dsi->lanes); > >Is this defined in the binding? Apparently not which I assumed. Other bindings mentions dsi-lanes, but I guess "num-dsi-lanes" would be more correct. >> err = mipi_dsi_attach(dsi); >> if (err) { >> struct panel_simple *panel = mipi_dsi_get_drvdata(dsi); >> >> + dev_err(&dsi->dev, "probe attach err: %i", err); > >Do not introduce unrelated code changes. As before, it helps the user who has a messed up devicetree find out, since we now gets some more configurability using devicetree. Would it be acceptable as a separate commit, or should I simply skip this? >Best regards, >Krzysztof Thanks! Best regards /Johan
