Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] drm/ssd130x: Implement ssd130x_write_cmd() on top of ssd130x_write_cmds()
Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.drivers.devicetree,gmane.comp.video.dri.devel,gmane.linux.kernel |
|---|---|
| Organization | Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - c/o Alberga Business Park, 6 krs, Bertel Jungin Aukio 5, 02600 Espoo |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 11:06:25AM +0300, Amit Barzilai wrote:
> ssd130x_write_cmd() and ssd130x_write_cmds() each carried their own
> regmap_write() loop over SSD13XX_COMMAND, differing only in how the caller
> supplies the bytes.
>
> Turn ssd130x_write_cmd() into a thin variadic wrapper that collects its
> arguments into a small stack buffer and defers to ssd130x_write_cmds(), and
> move the protocol comment onto the latter, which is where the loop now
> lives.
>
> No functional change: the bytes sent and the bus transactions used to send
> them are identical for every chip on both the I2C and SPI transports.
...
> +static int ssd130x_write_cmd(struct ssd130x_device *ssd130x, int count,
> + /* u8 cmd, u8 param, ... */...)
> +{
> + u8 buf[8];
> + va_list ap;
> +
> + if (drm_WARN_ON(&ssd130x->drm, count > ARRAY_SIZE(buf)))
For byte arrays sizeof() is sufficient.
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + va_start(ap, count);
> + for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
> + buf[i] = va_arg(ap, int);
> + va_end(ap);
> +
> + return ssd130x_write_cmds(ssd130x, buf, count);
> +}
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko