From: zhangxuezhi <redacted>
For st7789v ic,when we need continuous full screen refresh, it is best to
wait for the TE signal arrive to avoid screen tearing
Signed-off-by: zhangxuezhi <redacted>
---
v10: additional notes
v9: change pr_* to dev_*
v8: delete a log line
v7: return error value when request fail
v6: add te gpio request fail deal logic
v5: fix log print
v4: modify some code style and change te irq set function name
v3: modify author and signed-off-by name
v2: add release te gpio after irq request fail
---
drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_st7789v.c | 132 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft.h | 1 +
2 files changed, 132 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
@@ -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 */+staticstructmutexte_mutex;/* mutex for set te gpio irq status */+staticstructcompletionspi_panel_te;++staticirqreturn_tspi_panel_te_handler(intirq,void*data)+{+complete(&spi_panel_te);+returnIRQ_HANDLED;+}++staticvoidset_spi_panel_te_irq_status(structfbtft_par*par,boolenable)+{+staticintte_irq_count;++mutex_lock(&te_mutex);++if(enable){+if(++te_irq_count==1)+enable_irq(gpiod_to_irq(par->gpio.te));+}else{+if(--te_irq_count==0)+disable_irq(gpiod_to_irq(par->gpio.te));+}+mutex_unlock(&te_mutex);+}+/***init_display()-initializethedisplaycontroller*
@@ -82,6 +111,33 @@ enum st7789v_command {*/staticintinit_display(structfbtft_par*par){+intrc;+structdevice*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);+returnrc;+}+if(par->gpio.te){+init_completion(&spi_panel_te);+mutex_init(&te_mutex);+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");+devm_gpiod_put(dev,par->gpio.te);+returnrc;+}++disable_irq_nosync(gpiod_to_irq(par->gpio.te));+}else{+dev_info(par->info->device,"%s:%d, TE gpio not specified\n",+__func__,__LINE__);+}/* turn off sleep mode */write_reg(par,MIPI_DCS_EXIT_SLEEP_MODE);mdelay(120);
@@ -137,6 +193,9 @@ static int init_display(struct fbtft_par *par)*/write_reg(par,PWCTRL1,0xA4,0xA1);+/*Tearing Effect Line On*/+if(par->gpio.te)+write_reg(par,0x35,0x00);write_reg(par,MIPI_DCS_SET_DISPLAY_ON);if(HSD20_IPS)
@@ -145,6 +204,76 @@ static int init_display(struct fbtft_par *par)return0;}+/*****************************************************************************+*+*int(*write_vmem)(structfbtft_par*par);+*+*****************************************************************************/++/* 16 bit pixel over 8-bit databus */+staticintst7789v_write_vmem16_bus8(structfbtft_par*par,size_toffset,size_tlen)+{+u16*vmem16;+__be16*txbuf16=par->txbuf.buf;+size_tremain;+size_tto_copy;+size_ttx_array_size;+inti;+intret=0;+size_tstartbyte_size=0;++fbtft_par_dbg(DEBUG_WRITE_VMEM,par,"st7789v ---%s(offset=%zu, len=%zu)\n",+__func__,offset,len);++remain=len/2;+vmem16=(u16*)(par->info->screen_buffer+offset);++if(par->gpio.dc)+gpiod_set_value(par->gpio.dc,1);++/* non buffered write */+if(!par->txbuf.buf)+returnpar->fbtftops.write(par,vmem16,len);++/* buffered write */+tx_array_size=par->txbuf.len/2;++if(par->startbyte){+txbuf16=par->txbuf.buf+1;+tx_array_size-=2;+*(u8*)(par->txbuf.buf)=par->startbyte|0x2;+startbyte_size=1;+}++while(remain){+to_copy=min(tx_array_size,remain);+dev_dbg(par->info->device," to_copy=%zu, remain=%zu\n",+to_copy,remain-to_copy);++for(i=0;i<to_copy;i++)+txbuf16[i]=cpu_to_be16(vmem16[i]);++vmem16=vmem16+to_copy;+if(par->gpio.te){+set_spi_panel_te_irq_status(par,true);+reinit_completion(&spi_panel_te);+ret=wait_for_completion_timeout(&spi_panel_te,+msecs_to_jiffies(SPI_PANEL_TE_TIMEOUT));+if(ret==0)+dev_err(par->info->device,"wait panel TE time out\n");+}+ret=par->fbtftops.write(par,par->txbuf.buf,+startbyte_size+to_copy*2);+if(par->gpio.te)+set_spi_panel_te_irq_status(par,false);+if(ret<0)+returnret;+remain-=to_copy;+}++returnret;+}+/***set_var()-applyLCDpropertieslikerotationandBGRmode*
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 09:42:52PM +0800, Carlis wrote:
From: zhangxuezhi <redacted>
For st7789v ic,when we need continuous full screen refresh, it is best to
wait for the TE signal arrive to avoid screen tearing
Signed-off-by: zhangxuezhi <redacted>
Please slow down and wait at least a day between patch submissions,
there is no rush here.
And also, ALWAYS run scripts/checkpatch.pl on your submissions, so that
you don't have a maintainer asking you about basic problems, like are in
this current patch :(
thanks,
greg k-h
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 14:51:55 +0100
Greg KH [off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 09:42:52PM +0800, Carlis wrote:
quoted
From: zhangxuezhi <redacted>
For st7789v ic,when we need continuous full screen refresh, it is
best to wait for the TE signal arrive to avoid screen tearing
Signed-off-by: zhangxuezhi <redacted>
Please slow down and wait at least a day between patch submissions,
there is no rush here.
And also, ALWAYS run scripts/checkpatch.pl on your submissions, so
that you don't have a maintainer asking you about basic problems,
like are in this current patch :(
thanks,
greg k-h
hi,
This is my first patch contribution to Linux, so some of the rules
are not very clear .In addition, I can confirm that before sending
patch, I check it with checkPatch.py every time.Thank you very much for
your help
regards
zhangxuezhi
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:08:09PM +0800, carlis wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 14:51:55 +0100
Greg KH [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 09:42:52PM +0800, Carlis wrote:
quoted
From: zhangxuezhi <redacted>
For st7789v ic,when we need continuous full screen refresh, it is
best to wait for the TE signal arrive to avoid screen tearing
Signed-off-by: zhangxuezhi <redacted>
Please slow down and wait at least a day between patch submissions,
there is no rush here.
And also, ALWAYS run scripts/checkpatch.pl on your submissions, so
that you don't have a maintainer asking you about basic problems,
like are in this current patch :(
thanks,
greg k-h
hi,
This is my first patch contribution to Linux, so some of the rules
are not very clear .In addition, I can confirm that before sending
patch, I check it with checkPatch.py every time.Thank you very much for
your help
Please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches which has a link to the
checklist and other documentation you should read.
And I doubt you are running checkpatch on your submission, as there is
obvious coding style issues in it. If so, please provide the output as
it must be broken :(
thanks,
greg k-h
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:13:05 +0100
Greg KH [off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:08:09PM +0800, carlis wrote:
quoted
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 14:51:55 +0100
Greg KH [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 09:42:52PM +0800, Carlis wrote:
quoted
From: zhangxuezhi <redacted>
For st7789v ic,when we need continuous full screen refresh, it
is best to wait for the TE signal arrive to avoid screen tearing
Signed-off-by: zhangxuezhi <redacted>
Please slow down and wait at least a day between patch
submissions, there is no rush here.
And also, ALWAYS run scripts/checkpatch.pl on your submissions, so
that you don't have a maintainer asking you about basic problems,
like are in this current patch :(
thanks,
greg k-h
hi,
This is my first patch contribution to Linux, so some of the rules
are not very clear .In addition, I can confirm that before sending
patch, I check it with checkPatch.py every time.Thank you very much
for your help
Please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches which has a link to the
checklist and other documentation you should read.
And I doubt you are running checkpatch on your submission, as there is
obvious coding style issues in it. If so, please provide the output
as it must be broken :(
thanks,
greg k-h
hi, the patch v11 checkpatch.pl output is below:
carlis@bf-rmsz-10:~/work/linux-kernel/linux$ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl
0001-staging-fbtft-add-tearing-signal-detect.patch total: 0 errors, 0
warnings, 0 checks, 176 lines checked
0001-staging-fbtft-add-tearing-signal-detect.patch has no obvious style
problems and is ready for submission.
regards
zhangxuezhi
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:17:08PM +0800, carlis wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:13:05 +0100
Greg KH [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:08:09PM +0800, carlis wrote:
quoted
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 14:51:55 +0100
Greg KH [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 09:42:52PM +0800, Carlis wrote:
quoted
From: zhangxuezhi <redacted>
For st7789v ic,when we need continuous full screen refresh, it
is best to wait for the TE signal arrive to avoid screen tearing
Signed-off-by: zhangxuezhi <redacted>
Please slow down and wait at least a day between patch
submissions, there is no rush here.
And also, ALWAYS run scripts/checkpatch.pl on your submissions, so
that you don't have a maintainer asking you about basic problems,
like are in this current patch :(
thanks,
greg k-h
hi,
This is my first patch contribution to Linux, so some of the rules
are not very clear .In addition, I can confirm that before sending
patch, I check it with checkPatch.py every time.Thank you very much
for your help
Please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches which has a link to the
checklist and other documentation you should read.
And I doubt you are running checkpatch on your submission, as there is
obvious coding style issues in it. If so, please provide the output
as it must be broken :(
thanks,
greg k-h
hi, the patch v11 checkpatch.pl output is below:
carlis@bf-rmsz-10:~/work/linux-kernel/linux$ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl
0001-staging-fbtft-add-tearing-signal-detect.patch total: 0 errors, 0
warnings, 0 checks, 176 lines checked
0001-staging-fbtft-add-tearing-signal-detect.patch has no obvious style
problems and is ready for submission.
From: Dan Carpenter <hidden> Date: 2021-01-27 14:53:14
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 03:25:20PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:17:08PM +0800, carlis wrote:
quoted
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:13:05 +0100
Greg KH [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:08:09PM +0800, carlis wrote:
quoted
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 14:51:55 +0100
Greg KH [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 09:42:52PM +0800, Carlis wrote:
quoted
From: zhangxuezhi <redacted>
For st7789v ic,when we need continuous full screen refresh, it
is best to wait for the TE signal arrive to avoid screen tearing
Signed-off-by: zhangxuezhi <redacted>
Please slow down and wait at least a day between patch
submissions, there is no rush here.
And also, ALWAYS run scripts/checkpatch.pl on your submissions, so
that you don't have a maintainer asking you about basic problems,
like are in this current patch :(
thanks,
greg k-h
hi,
This is my first patch contribution to Linux, so some of the rules
are not very clear .In addition, I can confirm that before sending
patch, I check it with checkPatch.py every time.Thank you very much
for your help
Please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches which has a link to the
checklist and other documentation you should read.
And I doubt you are running checkpatch on your submission, as there is
obvious coding style issues in it. If so, please provide the output
as it must be broken :(
thanks,
greg k-h
hi, the patch v11 checkpatch.pl output is below:
carlis@bf-rmsz-10:~/work/linux-kernel/linux$ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl
0001-staging-fbtft-add-tearing-signal-detect.patch total: 0 errors, 0
warnings, 0 checks, 176 lines checked
0001-staging-fbtft-add-tearing-signal-detect.patch has no obvious style
problems and is ready for submission.
/*Tearing Effect Line On*/
Comments are the exception to the "no spaces at the start of a line"
rule. I was expecting that the kbuild-bot would send a Smatch warning
for inconsistent indenting, but comments are not counted there either.
I'm sort of surprised that we don't have checkpatch rule about the
missing space characters. It should be: "/* Tearing Effect Line On */".
regards,
dan carpenter
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 05:49:46PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 03:25:20PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:17:08PM +0800, carlis wrote:
quoted
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:13:05 +0100
Greg KH [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:08:09PM +0800, carlis wrote:
quoted
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 14:51:55 +0100
Greg KH [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 09:42:52PM +0800, Carlis wrote:
quoted
From: zhangxuezhi <redacted>
For st7789v ic,when we need continuous full screen refresh, it
is best to wait for the TE signal arrive to avoid screen tearing
Signed-off-by: zhangxuezhi <redacted>
Please slow down and wait at least a day between patch
submissions, there is no rush here.
And also, ALWAYS run scripts/checkpatch.pl on your submissions, so
that you don't have a maintainer asking you about basic problems,
like are in this current patch :(
thanks,
greg k-h
hi,
This is my first patch contribution to Linux, so some of the rules
are not very clear .In addition, I can confirm that before sending
patch, I check it with checkPatch.py every time.Thank you very much
for your help
Please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches which has a link to the
checklist and other documentation you should read.
And I doubt you are running checkpatch on your submission, as there is
obvious coding style issues in it. If so, please provide the output
as it must be broken :(
thanks,
greg k-h
hi, the patch v11 checkpatch.pl output is below:
carlis@bf-rmsz-10:~/work/linux-kernel/linux$ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl
0001-staging-fbtft-add-tearing-signal-detect.patch total: 0 errors, 0
warnings, 0 checks, 176 lines checked
0001-staging-fbtft-add-tearing-signal-detect.patch has no obvious style
problems and is ready for submission.
/*Tearing Effect Line On*/
Comments are the exception to the "no spaces at the start of a line"
rule. I was expecting that the kbuild-bot would send a Smatch warning
for inconsistent indenting, but comments are not counted there either.
I'm sort of surprised that we don't have checkpatch rule about the
missing space characters. It should be: "/* Tearing Effect Line On */".
That was going to be my next question, lots of comments added in this
patch don't have spaces...
thanks,
greg k-h
/*Tearing Effect Line On*/
Comments are the exception to the "no spaces at the start of a line"
rule. I was expecting that the kbuild-bot would send a Smatch warning
for inconsistent indenting, but comments are not counted there either.
I'm sort of surprised that we don't have checkpatch rule about the
missing space characters. It should be: "/* Tearing Effect Line On */".
You could always write your own rule...
checkpatch doesn't care if a comment looks like
/********************/
or
/*foobarfoobarfoobar*/
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> Date: 2021-01-27 18:22:39
Comments are the exception to the "no spaces at the start of a line"
rule. I was expecting that the kbuild-bot would send a Smatch warning
for inconsistent indenting, but comments are not counted there either.
I'm sort of surprised that we don't have checkpatch rule about the
missing space characters. It should be: "/* Tearing Effect Line On */".
Maybe this but the "preceded by a tab" test is pretty noisy.
---
@@ -3720,6 +3720,22 @@ sub process {s/(\(\s*$Type\s*\))[\t]+/$1/;}}++#Commentstyles+#Initialcommentonlylinesthathavealeadingspace+if($rawline=~m{^\+([\t]+)(?:/\*|//)}&&$1=~//){+WARN("COMMENT_STYLE",+"Initial comment lines should be indented only with tabs\n".$herecurr);+#commentsnotalignedontabs+}elsif($rawline!~m{^\+(?:/\*|//)}&&+$rawline=~m{^\+.*[^\t](?:/\*|//)}){+CHK("COMMENT_STYLE",+"Comments should generally be preceded by a tab\n".$herecurr);+}++#commentinitiatorsshouldgenerallybefollowedbyaspaceifusingwords+if($rawline=~m{^\+.*(?:/\*|//)\w}){+WARN("COMMENT_STYLE",+"Comment text should use a space after the comment initiator\n".$herecurr);+}#Blockcommentstyles#Networkingwithaninitial/*
Same here. Maybe you can think better way and then this code would also be
cleaner.
+
+ mutex_lock(&te_mutex);
So locking should be done if we really do action and not just in case.
quoted hunk
++ if (enable) {+ if (++te_irq_count == 1)+ enable_irq(gpiod_to_irq(par->gpio.te));+ } else {+ if (--te_irq_count == 0)+ disable_irq(gpiod_to_irq(par->gpio.te));+ }+ mutex_unlock(&te_mutex);+}+ /** * init_display() - initialize the display controller *
@@ -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.
quoted hunk
+ if (par->gpio.te) {+ init_completion(&spi_panel_te);+ mutex_init(&te_mutex);+ 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");+ devm_gpiod_put(dev, par->gpio.te);+ return rc;+ }++ disable_irq_nosync(gpiod_to_irq(par->gpio.te));+ } else {+ dev_info(par->info->device, "%s:%d, TE gpio not specified\n",+ __func__, __LINE__);+ } /* turn off sleep mode */ write_reg(par, MIPI_DCS_EXIT_SLEEP_MODE); mdelay(120);
@@ -137,6 +193,9 @@ static int init_display(struct fbtft_par *par) */ write_reg(par, PWCTRL1, 0xA4, 0xA1);+ /*Tearing Effect Line On*/
Spaces and why upcase everything?
quoted hunk
+ if (par->gpio.te)+ write_reg(par, 0x35, 0x00); write_reg(par, MIPI_DCS_SET_DISPLAY_ON); if (HSD20_IPS)
@@ -145,6 +204,76 @@ static int init_display(struct fbtft_par *par) return 0; }+/*****************************************************************************+ *+ * int (*write_vmem)(struct fbtft_par *par);+ *+ *****************************************************************************/+
Why this kind of function comment? Please use same as another function
comments in this file. They are atleast almoust like kernel-doc style.
quoted hunk
+/* 16 bit pixel over 8-bit databus */+static int st7789v_write_vmem16_bus8(struct fbtft_par *par, size_t offset, size_t len)+{+ u16 *vmem16;+ __be16 *txbuf16 = par->txbuf.buf;+ size_t remain;+ size_t to_copy;+ size_t tx_array_size;+ int i;+ int ret = 0;+ size_t startbyte_size = 0;++ fbtft_par_dbg(DEBUG_WRITE_VMEM, par, "st7789v ---%s(offset=%zu, len=%zu)\n",+ __func__, offset, len);++ remain = len / 2;+ vmem16 = (u16 *)(par->info->screen_buffer + offset);++ if (par->gpio.dc)+ gpiod_set_value(par->gpio.dc, 1);++ /* non buffered write */+ if (!par->txbuf.buf)+ return par->fbtftops.write(par, vmem16, len);++ /* buffered write */+ tx_array_size = par->txbuf.len / 2;++ if (par->startbyte) {+ txbuf16 = par->txbuf.buf + 1;+ tx_array_size -= 2;+ *(u8 *)(par->txbuf.buf) = par->startbyte | 0x2;+ startbyte_size = 1;+ }++ while (remain) {
for (remain = len / 2; remain; remain -= to_copy) {
or even use len = len / 2 if you wanna save variable.
+ to_copy = min(tx_array_size, remain);
Care must be taken that this will not be endless loop if another is 0. I
will not check this further but hopefully you have.
quoted hunk
+ dev_dbg(par->info->device, " to_copy=%zu, remain=%zu\n",+ to_copy, remain - to_copy);++ for (i = 0; i < to_copy; i++)+ txbuf16[i] = cpu_to_be16(vmem16[i]);++ vmem16 = vmem16 + to_copy;
+= Or you can ++ vmem16 at the for loop but that is not so readable
sometimes with pointers.
quoted hunk
+ if (par->gpio.te) {+ set_spi_panel_te_irq_status(par, true);+ reinit_completion(&spi_panel_te);+ ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&spi_panel_te,+ msecs_to_jiffies(SPI_PANEL_TE_TIMEOUT));+ if (ret == 0)
!ret
quoted hunk
+ dev_err(par->info->device, "wait panel TE time out\n");+ }+ ret = par->fbtftops.write(par, par->txbuf.buf,+ startbyte_size + to_copy * 2);+ if (par->gpio.te)+ set_spi_panel_te_irq_status(par, false);+ if (ret < 0)+ return ret;+ remain -= to_copy;+ }++ return ret;
Do we want to return something over 0? If not then this can be return 0.
And then you do not need to even init ret value at the beginning.
Also wait little bit like Greg sayd before sending new version. Someone
might nack about what I say or say something more.
quoted hunk
+}+ /** * set_var() - apply LCD properties like rotation and BGR mode *
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 16:02:35 +0100
Greg KH [off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 05:49:46PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 03:25:20PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:17:08PM +0800, carlis wrote:
quoted
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:13:05 +0100
Greg KH [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:08:09PM +0800, carlis wrote:
quoted
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 14:51:55 +0100
Greg KH [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 09:42:52PM +0800, Carlis wrote:
quoted
From: zhangxuezhi <redacted>
For st7789v ic,when we need continuous full screen
refresh, it is best to wait for the TE signal arrive to
avoid screen tearing
Signed-off-by: zhangxuezhi <redacted>
Please slow down and wait at least a day between patch
submissions, there is no rush here.
And also, ALWAYS run scripts/checkpatch.pl on your
submissions, so that you don't have a maintainer asking
you about basic problems, like are in this current patch
:(
thanks,
greg k-h
hi,
This is my first patch contribution to Linux, so some of
the rules are not very clear .In addition, I can confirm
that before sending patch, I check it with checkPatch.py
every time.Thank you very much for your help
Please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches which has a link
to the checklist and other documentation you should read.
And I doubt you are running checkpatch on your submission, as
there is obvious coding style issues in it. If so, please
provide the output as it must be broken :(
thanks,
greg k-h
hi, the patch v11 checkpatch.pl output is below:
carlis@bf-rmsz-10:~/work/linux-kernel/linux$
./scripts/checkpatch.pl
0001-staging-fbtft-add-tearing-signal-detect.patch total: 0
errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 176 lines checked
0001-staging-fbtft-add-tearing-signal-detect.patch has no
obvious style problems and is ready for submission.
/*Tearing Effect Line On*/
Comments are the exception to the "no spaces at the start of a line"
rule. I was expecting that the kbuild-bot would send a Smatch
warning for inconsistent indenting, but comments are not counted
there either.
I'm sort of surprised that we don't have checkpatch rule about the
missing space characters. It should be: "/* Tearing Effect Line On
*/".
That was going to be my next question, lots of comments added in this
patch don't have spaces...
thanks,
greg k-h
Ok,i will fix it in patch v12 tomorrow
regards,
zhangxuezhi
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.
You mean i just delete this dev_err print ?!
like this:
par->gpio.te = devm_gpiod_get_index_optional(dev, "te",
0,GPIOD_IN);
if (IS_ERR(par->gpio.te))
return PTR_ERR(par->gpio.te);
+= Or you can ++ vmem16 at the for loop but that is not so readable
sometimes with pointers.
quoted
+ if (par->gpio.te) {
+ set_spi_panel_te_irq_status(par, true);
+ reinit_completion(&spi_panel_te);
+ ret =
wait_for_completion_timeout(&spi_panel_te,
+
msecs_to_jiffies(SPI_PANEL_TE_TIMEOUT));
+ if (ret == 0)
!ret
quoted
+ dev_err(par->info->device, "wait
panel TE time out\n");
+ }
+ ret = par->fbtftops.write(par, par->txbuf.buf,
+ startbyte_size + to_copy
* 2);
+ if (par->gpio.te)
+ set_spi_panel_te_irq_status(par, false);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ret;
+ remain -= to_copy;
+ }
+
+ return ret;
Do we want to return something over 0? If not then this can be return
0. And then you do not need to even init ret value at the beginning.
Also wait little bit like Greg sayd before sending new version.
Someone might nack about what I say or say something more.
hi, i copy fbtft_write_vmem16_bus8 from file fbtft_bus.c and modify it
,just add te wait logic, i will take more time to check this original
function.
quoted
+}+ /** * set_var() - apply LCD properties like rotation and BGR mode *
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.
You mean i just delete this dev_err print ?!
like this:
par->gpio.te = devm_gpiod_get_index_optional(dev, "te",
0,GPIOD_IN);
if (IS_ERR(par->gpio.te))
return PTR_ERR(par->gpio.te);
Not exactly. I'm suggesting something like this.
if (IS_ERR(par->gpio.te) == -EPROBE_DEFER) {
return -EPROBE_DEFER;
if (IS_ERR(par->gpio.te))
par-gpio.te = NULL;
This like beginning of your patch series but the difference is that if
EPROBE_DEFER then we will try again later. Any other error and we will
just ignore TE gpio. But this is up to you what you want to do. To me
this just seems place where this kind of logic can work.
quoted
quoted
+ if (par->gpio.te) {
+ set_spi_panel_te_irq_status(par, true);
+ reinit_completion(&spi_panel_te);
+ ret =
wait_for_completion_timeout(&spi_panel_te,
+
msecs_to_jiffies(SPI_PANEL_TE_TIMEOUT));
+ if (ret == 0)
!ret
quoted
+ dev_err(par->info->device, "wait
panel TE time out\n");
+ }
+ ret = par->fbtftops.write(par, par->txbuf.buf,
+ startbyte_size + to_copy
* 2);
+ if (par->gpio.te)
+ set_spi_panel_te_irq_status(par, false);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ret;
+ remain -= to_copy;
+ }
+
+ return ret;
Do we want to return something over 0? If not then this can be return
0. And then you do not need to even init ret value at the beginning.
Also wait little bit like Greg sayd before sending new version.
Someone might nack about what I say or say something more.
hi, i copy fbtft_write_vmem16_bus8 from file fbtft_bus.c and modify it
,just add te wait logic, i will take more time to check this original
function.
"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.
You mean i just delete this dev_err print ?!
like this:
par->gpio.te = devm_gpiod_get_index_optional(dev, "te",
0,GPIOD_IN);
if (IS_ERR(par->gpio.te))
return PTR_ERR(par->gpio.te);
Not exactly. I'm suggesting something like this.
if (IS_ERR(par->gpio.te) == -EPROBE_DEFER) {
return -EPROBE_DEFER;
if (IS_ERR(par->gpio.te))
par-gpio.te = NULL;
This like beginning of your patch series but the difference is that if
EPROBE_DEFER then we will try again later. Any other error and we will
just ignore TE gpio. But this is up to you what you want to do. To me
this just seems place where this kind of logic can work.
quoted
quoted
quoted
+ if (par->gpio.te) {
+ set_spi_panel_te_irq_status(par, true);
+ reinit_completion(&spi_panel_te);
+ ret =
wait_for_completion_timeout(&spi_panel_te,
+
msecs_to_jiffies(SPI_PANEL_TE_TIMEOUT));
+ if (ret == 0)
!ret
quoted
+ dev_err(par->info->device,
"wait panel TE time out\n");
+ }
+ ret = par->fbtftops.write(par, par->txbuf.buf,
+ startbyte_size +
to_copy
* 2);
+ if (par->gpio.te)
+ set_spi_panel_te_irq_status(par,
false);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ret;
+ remain -= to_copy;
+ }
+
+ return ret;
Do we want to return something over 0? If not then this can be
return 0. And then you do not need to even init ret value at the
beginning.
Also wait little bit like Greg sayd before sending new version.
Someone might nack about what I say or say something more.
hi, i copy fbtft_write_vmem16_bus8 from file fbtft_bus.c and modify
it ,just add te wait logic, i will take more time to check this
original function.
It might be ok or not. You should still check.
hi, i will check more carefully, now i have a new problem, Is there a
way to clear the interrupt pending state before opening it again?
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().
quoted
You mean i just delete this dev_err print ?!
like this:
par->gpio.te = devm_gpiod_get_index_optional(dev, "te",
0,GPIOD_IN);
if (IS_ERR(par->gpio.te))
return PTR_ERR(par->gpio.te);
Not exactly. I'm suggesting something like this.
if (IS_ERR(par->gpio.te) == -EPROBE_DEFER) {
return -EPROBE_DEFER;
if (IS_ERR(par->gpio.te))
par-gpio.te = NULL;
This like beginning of your patch series but the difference is that if
EPROBE_DEFER then we will try again later. Any other error and we will
just ignore TE gpio. But this is up to you what you want to do. To me
this just seems place where this kind of logic can work.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
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().
Yeah. Thanks for pointing that clearly.
quoted
quoted
You mean i just delete this dev_err print ?!
like this:
par->gpio.te = devm_gpiod_get_index_optional(dev, "te",
0,GPIOD_IN);
if (IS_ERR(par->gpio.te))
return PTR_ERR(par->gpio.te);
Not exactly. I'm suggesting something like this.
if (IS_ERR(par->gpio.te) == -EPROBE_DEFER) {
return -EPROBE_DEFER;
if (IS_ERR(par->gpio.te))
par-gpio.te = NULL;
This like beginning of your patch series but the difference is that if
EPROBE_DEFER then we will try again later. Any other error and we will
just ignore TE gpio. But this is up to you what you want to do. To me
this just seems place where this kind of logic can work.
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 10:42:54 +0100
Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] wrote:
Hi Kari,
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 7:53 AM Kari Argillander
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 09:42:58AM +0800, carlis wrote:
quoted
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 00:32:22 +0200
Kari Argillander [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
quoted
#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
quoted
Yeah sorry. I accidentally review wrong patch. But mostly stuff are
still relevant.
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;
}
disable_irq_nosync(gpiod_to_irq(par->gpio.te));
} else {
dev_info(par->info->device, "%s:%d, TE gpio not
specified\n", __func__, __LINE__);
}
quoted
quoted
You mean i just delete this dev_err print ?!
like this:
par->gpio.te = devm_gpiod_get_index_optional(dev, "te",
0,GPIOD_IN);
if (IS_ERR(par->gpio.te))
return PTR_ERR(par->gpio.te);
Not exactly. I'm suggesting something like this.
if (IS_ERR(par->gpio.te) == -EPROBE_DEFER) {
return -EPROBE_DEFER;
if (IS_ERR(par->gpio.te))
par-gpio.te = NULL;
This like beginning of your patch series but the difference is that
if EPROBE_DEFER then we will try again later. Any other error and
we will just ignore TE gpio. But this is up to you what you want to
do. To me this just seems place where this kind of logic can work.
Hi Carlis,
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:03 PM carlis [off-list ref] wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 10:42:54 +0100
Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 7:53 AM Kari Argillander
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 09:42:58AM +0800, carlis wrote:
quoted
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 00:32:22 +0200
Kari Argillander [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
quoted
#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
quoted
Yeah sorry. I accidentally review wrong patch. But mostly stuff are
still relevant.
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
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
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
quoted
Yeah sorry. I accidentally review wrong patch. But mostly stuff
are still relevant.
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()
quoted
}
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
From: Dan Carpenter <hidden> Date: 2021-01-28 15:16:54
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:32:22AM +0200, Kari Argillander wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 09:42:52PM +0800, Carlis wrote:
quoted
@@ -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.
Carlis tried that approach in previous versions. See the discussion
about -EPROBEi_DEFER.
That's not the right way to think about it anyway. It's optional but
the user *chose* to enable it so if an error occurs then it's still an
error and should be treated like an error. The user should fix the
error or disable the feature if they want to continue.
There are lots of places in the kernel where the error handling could
be written to try continue but in a crippled state. It's not the right
approach. Over engineering like that just leads to bugs.
regards,
dan carpenter