From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Ravnborg Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] drm/panel: Add OSD101T2587-53TS driver Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 13:41:20 +0100 Message-ID: <20190220124120.GB18603@ravnborg.org> References: <20190215140315.18046-1-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> <20190215140315.18046-5-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> <20190215180759.GA26944@ravnborg.org> <2398a647-be4c-15e4-3e28-36382a834dce@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2398a647-be4c-15e4-3e28-36382a834dce@ti.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Ujfalusi Cc: thierry.reding@gmail.com, airlied@linux.ie, daniel@ffwll.ch, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, tomi.valkeinen@ti.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Peter. Always good to see that feedback input is used. > OK. > > >> + > >> + return 0; > >> +} > >> + > >> +static void osd101t2587_panel_shutdown(struct mipi_dsi_device *dsi) > >> +{ > >> + struct osd101t2587_panel *osd101t2587 = mipi_dsi_get_drvdata(dsi); > >> + > > Maybe call osd101t2587_panel_unprepare() here to turn off power supply? > > Make sense, in this order: > osd101t2587_panel_disable(&osd101t2587->base); > osd101t2587_panel_unprepare(&osd101t2587->base); > > But should the osd101t2587_panel_remove() do the same thing? or the > osd101t2587_panel_disable() is redundant in the osd101t2587_panel_remove()? I do not know the details to answer this. In other words - I do not know if we can rely on that panel->disbale is always called when a driver is removed. Try to read the descriptions and maybe test it. Other drivers do as far as I recall use disable in the remove function. Sam