Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 08 Nov 2021 18:53:24 +0000 | From | Paul Cercueil <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] drm/ingenic: Add support for JZ4780 and HDMI output |
| |
Hi Nikolaus,
Le lun., nov. 8 2021 at 19:33:48 +0100, H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@goldelico.com> a écrit : > Hi Paul, > >> Am 08.11.2021 um 18:49 schrieb Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>: >> >>>> Variant 4: the variant #2 without the changes to the DTSI files. >>> Hm. If there is no cache and we can safely remove tight boundary >>> checking (by JZ_REG_LCD_SIZE1) for jz4725/40/70 (by not fixing >>> DTSI) why do we still need the max_register calculation from DTSI >>> specifically for jz4780 and at all? >> >> It's better to have the .max_register actually set to the proper >> value. Then reading the registers from debugfs >> (/sys/kernel/debug/regmap/) will print the actual list of registers >> without bogus values. If .max_register is set too high, it will end >> up reading outside the registers area. > > Ok, that is a good reason to convince me. > >> On Ingenic SoCs such reads just return 0, but on some other SoCs it >> can lock up the system. > > Yes, I know some of these... > >> So the best way forward is to have .max_register computed from the >> register area's size, and fix the DTSI with the proper sizes. Since >> your JZ4780 code needs to update .max_register anyway it's a good >> moment to add this patch, and the DTSI files can be fixed later (by >> me or whoever is up to the task). > > Well, it would already be part of my Variant #2 (untested). So I > could simply split it up further and you can test the pure dtsi > changes and apply them later or modify if that makes problems. Saves > you a little work. BTW: the jz4740 seems to have even less registers > (last register seems to be LCDCMD1 @ 0x1305005C).
Sure, if you want. Send the DTSI patch(es) separate from this patchset then.
>> >> Fixing the DTS is not a problem in any way, btw. We just need to >> ensure that the drivers still work with old DTB files, which will be >> the case here. > > Yes, that is right since the new values are smaller than the > originals. > > Ok, then let's do it that way.
Great. Waiting for your v6 then.
Cheers, -Paul
| |