Re: [PATCH v10] staging: fbtft: add tearing signal detect

carlis
2021-01-28T11:43:53Z

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 12:15:28 +0100
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:

> Hi Carlis,
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:03 PM carlis <zhangxuezhi3@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 10:42:54 +0100
> > Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 7:53 AM Kari Argillander
> > > <kari.argillander@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 09:42:58AM +0800, carlis wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 00:32:22 +0200
> > > > > Kari Argillander <kari.argillander@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > #include "fbtft.h"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #define DRVNAME "fb_st7789v"
> > > > > > > @@ -66,6 +69,32 @@ enum st7789v_command {
> > > > > > > #define MADCTL_MX BIT(6) /* bitmask for column address
> > > > > > > order */ #define MADCTL_MY BIT(7) /* bitmask for page
> > > > > > > address order */
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +#define SPI_PANEL_TE_TIMEOUT 400 /* msecs */
> > > > > > > +static struct mutex te_mutex;/* mutex for set te gpio irq
> > > > > > > status */
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Space after ;
> > > > > hi, i have fix it in the patch v11
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yeah sorry. I accidentally review wrong patch. But mostly stuff
> > > > are still relevant.
> > > >
> > > > > > > @@ -82,6 +111,33 @@ enum st7789v_command {
> > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > static int init_display(struct fbtft_par *par)
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > + int rc;
> > > > > > > + struct device *dev = par->info->device;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + par->gpio.te = devm_gpiod_get_index_optional(dev, "te",
> > > > > > > 0, GPIOD_IN);
> > > > > > > + if (IS_ERR(par->gpio.te)) {
> > > > > > > + rc = PTR_ERR(par->gpio.te);
> > > > > > > + dev_err(par->info->device, "Failed to request te
> > > > > > > gpio: %d\n", rc);
> > > > > > > + return rc;
> > > > > > > + }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You request with optinal and you still want to error out? We
> > > > > > could just continue and not care about that error. User
> > > > > > will be happier if device still works somehow.
> > >
> > > devm_gpiod_get_index_optional() returns NULL, not an error, if the
> > > GPIO is not found. So if IS_ERR() is the right check.
> > >
> > > And checks for -EPROBE_DEFER can be handled automatically
> > > by using dev_err_probe() instead of dev_err().
> > >
> > hi, i fix it like below!?
> > par->gpio.te = devm_gpiod_get_index_optional(dev, "te", 0,
> > GPIOD_IN); if (IS_ERR(par->gpio.te)) {
> > rc = PTR_ERR(par->gpio.te);
> > dev_err_probe(par->info->device, rc, "Failed to
> > request te gpio\n"); return rc;
> > }
> > if (par->gpio.te) {
> > init_completion(&spi_panel_te);
> > rc = devm_request_irq(dev,
> > gpiod_to_irq(par->gpio.te),
> > spi_panel_te_handler,
> > IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING, "TE_GPIO", par);
> > if (rc) {
> > dev_err(par->info->device, "TE request_irq
> > failed.\n"); return rc;
>
> dev_err_probe()
>
> > }
> >
> > disable_irq_nosync(gpiod_to_irq(par->gpio.te));
> > } else {
> > dev_info(par->info->device, "%s:%d, TE gpio not
> > specified\n", __func__, __LINE__);
> > }
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>

hi,i will fix it like below:

par->gpio.te = devm_gpiod_get_index_optional(dev, "te", 0,
GPIOD_IN); if (IS_ERR(par->gpio.te))
return dev_err_probe(par->info->device,
PTR_ERR(par->gpio.te), "Failed to request te gpio\n");

if (par->gpio.te) {
init_completion(&spi_panel_te);
rc = devm_request_irq(dev,
gpiod_to_irq(par->gpio.te),
spi_panel_te_handler,
IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING, "TE_GPIO", par);
if (IS_ERR(rc))
return dev_err_probe(par->info->device,
PTR_ERR(rc), "TE request_irq failed.\n");

disable_irq_nosync(gpiod_to_irq(par->gpio.te));
} else {
dev_info(par->info->device, "%s:%d, TE gpio not
specified\n", __func__, __LINE__);
}

regards,
zhangxuezhi