Hi, On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 7:54 AM Anusha Srivatsa <asriv...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > @@ -78,7 +79,7 @@ static int r63353_panel_power_on(struct r63353_panel >> > *rpanel) >> > return ret; >> > } >> > >> > - usleep_range(15000, 25000); >> > + mipi_dsi_usleep_range(&dsi_ctx, 15000, 25000); >> >> No. None of the conversions in this function are correct. >> mipi_dsi_usleep_range() is only for use when you're in the middle of a >> bunch of other "multi" calls and want the sleep to be conditional upon >> there being no error. Here there is no chance of an error because no >> _multi() are used. Go back to the normal usleep_range(). >> > > OK. Then the approach to prefer mipi_dsi_usleep_range() over the previously > used usleep_range() everywhere is out the window. Sounds good. Is replacing > msleep() with mipi_dsi_msleep() preferable?
Same rules there. If you're in the middle of a sequence of "multi" commands and only want the sleep if there is no error then use mipi_dsi_msleep(). If you're not then use a regular msleep(). -Doug
