Hi, On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 3:12 AM Michail Tatas <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 04:31:53PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > > Hello Doug, thanks a lot for the review! > > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 3:09 PM Michail Tatas <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > @@ -159,36 +159,23 @@ static int ili9805_power_off(struct ili9805 *ctx) > > > > > > static int ili9805_activate(struct ili9805 *ctx) > > > { > > > - struct mipi_dsi_device *dsi = ctx->dsi; > > > - struct device *dev = &dsi->dev; > > > - int i, ret; > > > + struct mipi_dsi_multi_context dsi_ctx = { .dsi = ctx->dsi }; > > > + int i; > > > > > > for (i = 0; i < ctx->desc->init_length; i++) { > > > const struct ili9805_instr *instr = &ctx->desc->init[i]; > > > > > > - ret = mipi_dsi_dcs_write_buffer(ctx->dsi, instr->data, > > > instr->len); > > > - if (ret < 0) > > > - return ret; > > > + mipi_dsi_dcs_write_buffer_multi(&dsi_ctx, instr->data, > > > instr->len); > > > > > > if (instr->delay > 0) > > > - msleep(instr->delay); > > > - } > > > > What you've done is an improvement, but it's not all the way there. > > Specifically, we'd really want to get rid of the whole "struct > > ili9805_instr" type and instead each panel should have an init > > function. The "struct ili9805_desc" should have a pointer to the init > > function instead of a pointer to the init data. > > I am more than happy to do these changes as well. My only concern is > that I do not have hardware to test the panel. Are compiling and static > analysis sufficient tests for these changes ?
That is inevitable with these cleanups. We're doing our best with static analysis and code review. If someone comes along later and finds that something broke, we'll fix it. -Doug
