On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 1:37 PM Sean Paul sean@poorly.run wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 02:41:03PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c @@ -1632,8 +1632,23 @@ static ssize_t analogix_dpaux_transfer(struct drm_dp_aux *aux, struct drm_dp_aux_msg *msg) { struct analogix_dp_device *dp = to_dp(aux);
int ret, ret2;
return analogix_dp_transfer(dp, msg);
ret = analogix_dp_prepare_panel(dp, true, false);if (ret) {DRM_DEV_ERROR(dp->dev, "Failed to prepare panel (%d)\n", ret);s/DRM_DEV_ERROR/drm_err/
Sure. Now that I'm looking a second time, I see the header recommends this.
return ret;}pm_runtime_get_sync(dp->dev);ret = analogix_dp_transfer(dp, msg);pm_runtime_put(dp->dev);ret2 = analogix_dp_prepare_panel(dp, false, false);if (ret2)DRM_DEV_ERROR(dp->dev, "Failed to unprepare panel (%d)\n", ret2);What's the reasoning for not propagating unprepare failures? I feel like that should be fair game.
I suppose the underlying reason is laziness, sorry. But a related reason is the we probably should prefer propagating the analogix_dp_transfer() error, if it's non-zero, rather than the unprepare error. That's not too hard to do though, even if it's slightly more awkward.
return ret;}
struct analogix_dp_device *
v2 coming.
Regards, Brian