Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] drm: Add driver for Solomon SSD130x OLED displays

[Javier Martinez Canillas]

On 2/11/22 12:33, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 10:19:24AM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> This adds a DRM driver for SSD1305, SSD1306, SSD1307 and SSD1309 Solomon
>> OLED display controllers.
>>
>> It's only the core part of the driver and a bus specific driver is needed
>> for each transport interface supported by the display controllers.
> 
> ...
> 
>> +#include <linux/backlight.h>
>> +#include <linux/bitfield.h>
> 
> bits.h

Ok, missed that both weren't in the same macro.

> (FYI, specifically sent a patch few days ago to add explicitly the inclusions
>  that needed for bitfield operations in the example inside bitfield.h).
> 
>> +#include <linux/delay.h>
>> +#include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
>> +#include <linux/property.h>
>> +#include <linux/pwm.h>
>> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> 
> ...
> 
>> +#define SSD130X_SET_ADDRESS_MODE_HORIZONTAL	(0x00)
>> +#define SSD130X_SET_ADDRESS_MODE_VERTICAL	(0x01)
>> +#define SSD130X_SET_ADDRESS_MODE_PAGE		(0x02)
>> +
>> +#define SSD130X_SET_AREA_COLOR_MODE_ENABLE	(0x1e)
>> +#define SSD130X_SET_AREA_COLOR_MODE_LOW_POWER	(0x05)
> 
> Do the parentheses add anything here?
>

Not really, the fbdev driver used it and I understood that was
a convention to denote that these are command options and not a
command or register. I'll drop them.

> ...
> 
>> +/*
>> + * Helper to write command (SSD130X_COMMAND). The fist variadic argument
>> + * is the command to write and the following are the command options.
> 
> This is not correct explanation. Please, rephrase to show that _each_ of the
> options is sent with a preceding command.
>

It's a correct explanation IMO from the caller point of view. The first argument
is the command sent (i.e: SSD130X_SET_ADDRESS_MODE) and the next ones are the
the command options (i.e: SSD130X_SET_ADDRESS_MODE_HORIZONTAL).

The fact that each command and options are preceding with a SSD130X_COMMAND
value is part of the protocol of the device and a detail that's abstracted
away by this helper function to the callers.

>> + */
>> +static int ssd130x_write_cmd(struct ssd130x_device *ssd130x, int count,
>> +				    /* u8 cmd, u8 option, ... */...)
>> +{
>> +	va_list ap;
>> +	u8 value;
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	va_start(ap, count);
>> +
>> +	do {
>> +		value = va_arg(ap, int);
>> +		ret = regmap_write(ssd130x->regmap, SSD130X_COMMAND, (u8)value);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			goto out_end;
>> +	} while (--count);
>> +
>> +out_end:
>> +	va_end(ap);
>> +
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
> 
> ...
> 
>> +	if (ssd130x->device_info->need_pwm) {
> 
> Yeah, unfortunately we still don't have pwm_get_optional()...
> 
>> +		ret = ssd130x_pwm_enable(ssd130x);
>> +		if (ret) {
>> +			dev_err(dev, "Failed to enable PWM: %d\n", ret);
>> +			regulator_disable(ssd130x->vcc_reg);
>> +			return ret;
>> +		}
>> +	}
> 
> ...
> 
>> +static void ssd130x_power_off(struct ssd130x_device *ssd130x)
>> +{
> 
>> +	if (ssd130x->device_info->need_pwm) {
> 
> Redundant check. The two below are NULL-aware.
>

Ok, I'll drop it.

>> +		pwm_disable(ssd130x->pwm);
>> +		pwm_put(ssd130x->pwm);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	regulator_disable(ssd130x->vcc_reg);
>> +}
> 
> ...
> 
>> +	ret = ssd130x_write_cmd(ssd130x, 2, SSD130X_SET_COM_PINS_CONFIG, compins);
>> +	if (ret < 0)
>> +		return ret;
> 
>> +
>> +
> 
> One blank line is enough.
>

Indeed, that was a left over when changing this to use the macros.
 
> ...
> 
>> +	for (i = y / 8; i < y / 8 + pages; i++) {
>> +		int m = 8;
>> +
>> +		/* Last page may be partial */
>> +		if (8 * (i + 1) > ssd130x->height)
>> +			m = ssd130x->height % 8;
> 
> Perhaps it can be moved out of the loop with refactored piece below.
>

Not sure I'm following since it depends on the for loop iterator value.

[snip]

>> +	bl = devm_backlight_device_register(dev, dev_name(dev), dev, ssd130x,
>> +					    &ssd130xfb_bl_ops, NULL);
>> +	if (IS_ERR(bl)) {
> 
>> +		ret = PTR_ERR(bl);
>> +		dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Unable to register backlight device\n");
>> +		return ERR_PTR(ret);
> 
> 		dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(bl), "Unable to register backlight device\n");
> 		return bl;
> 
> ?

No, because this function's return value is a struct ssd130x_device pointer,
not a struct backlight_device pointer.

Best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat