Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/mipi-dsi: fix handling of ctx in mipi_dsi_msleep

[neil.armstrong@linaro.org]

On 12/06/2024 16:52, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 7:34 AM <neil.armstrong@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/06/2024 16:21, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 6:37 AM Tejas Vipin <tejasvipin76@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ctx would be better off treated as a pointer to account for most of its
>>>> usage so far, and brackets should be added to account for operator
>>>> precedence for correct evaluation.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: f79d6d28d8fe7 ("drm/mipi-dsi: wrap more functions for streamline handling")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tejas Vipin <tejasvipin76@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    include/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.h | 2 +-
>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> Yeah. Looking closer at the history, it looks like it was always
>>> intended to be a pointer since the first users all used it as a
>>> pointer.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
>>> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
>>>
>>> I've also compile-tested all the panels currently using mipi_dsi_msleep().
>>>
>>> Neil: Given that this is a correctness thing, I'd rather see this land
>>> sooner rather than later. If you agree, maybe you can land these two
>>> patches whenever you're comfortable with them?
>>
>> Applying them, but inverting them, fix should go first.
> 
> Well, they're both fixes, and inverting them means that you get a
> compile failure across several panels if you happen to be bisecting
> and land on the first commit, but it doesn't really matter. I guess
> the compile failure is maybe a benefit given that they were not doing
> their delays properly... ;-)

Yes, and thanksfully there's a fix for the build failure!

> 
> -Doug