lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: arm: mediatek: mmsys: change compatible for MT8195
From


On 26/08/2022 09:13, Bo-Chen Chen wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-08-26 at 15:00 +0800, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 26/08/2022 05:07, Bo-Chen Chen wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2022-08-25 at 22:57 +0800, Matthias Brugger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 25/08/2022 11:14, Bo-Chen Chen wrote:
>>>>> From: "Jason-JH.Lin" <jason-jh.lin@mediatek.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> For previous MediaTek SoCs, such as MT8173, there are 2 display
>>>>> HW
>>>>> pipelines binding to 1 mmsys with the same power domain, the
>>>>> same
>>>>> clock driver and the same mediatek-drm driver.
>>>>>
>>>>> For MT8195, VDOSYS0 and VDOSYS1 are 2 display HW pipelines
>>>>> binding
>>>>> to
>>>>> 2 different power domains, different clock drivers and
>>>>> different
>>>>> mediatek-drm drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moreover, Hardware pipeline of VDOSYS0 has these components:
>>>>> COLOR,
>>>>> CCORR, AAL, GAMMA, DITHER. They are related to the PQ (Picture
>>>>> Quality)
>>>>> and they makes VDOSYS0 supports PQ function while they are not
>>>>> including in VDOSYS1.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hardware pipeline of VDOSYS1 has the component ETHDR (HDR
>>>>> related
>>>>> component). It makes VDOSYS1 supports the HDR function while
>>>>> it's
>>>>> not
>>>>> including in VDOSYS0.
>>>>>
>>>>> To summarize0:
>>>>> Only VDOSYS0 can support PQ adjustment.
>>>>> Only VDOSYS1 can support HDR adjustment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, we need to separate these two different mmsys
>>>>> hardwares
>>>>> to
>>>>> 2 different compatibles for MT8195.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 81c5a41d10b9 ("dt-bindings: arm: mediatek: mmsys: add
>>>>> mt8195
>>>>> SoC binding")
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason-JH.Lin <jason-jh.lin@mediatek.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bo-Chen Chen <rex-bc.chen@mediatek.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Changes for v2:
>>>>> 1. Add hardware difference for VDOSYS0 and VDOSYS1 in commit
>>>>> message.
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yaml
>>>>> |
>>>>> 3 ++-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git
>>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys
>>>>> .yam
>>>>> l
>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys
>>>>> .yam
>>>>> l
>>>>> index 6ad023eec193..bfbdd30d2092 100644
>>>>> ---
>>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys
>>>>> .yam
>>>>> l
>>>>> +++
>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys
>>>>> .yam
>>>>> l
>>>>> @@ -31,7 +31,8 @@ properties:
>>>>> - mediatek,mt8183-mmsys
>>>>> - mediatek,mt8186-mmsys
>>>>> - mediatek,mt8192-mmsys
>>>>> - - mediatek,mt8195-mmsys
>>>>> + - mediatek,mt8195-vdosys0
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for you patch. As I mentioned on v1, I propose to set
>>>> mediatek,mt8195-mmsys as fallback for mediatek,mt8195-vdosys0 to
>>>> not
>>>> break
>>>> backwards compatibility.
>>>>
>>>> Apart from that, the binding change will need some changes to
>>>> support
>>>> the new
>>>> binding. Please provide these together with this patch.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Matthias
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hello Matthias,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your comments.
>>> The purpose of this patch is to confirm we can separate mt8195
>>> mmsys
>>> into two compatibles. I think this modification is accepted.
>>
>> No, it is not accepted following Matthias comments. You received my
>> ack
>> based on assumption that ABI break is perfectly ok for platform
>> maintainer, as he has decisive voice. If anyone is not happy with a
>> ABI
>> break, then his concerns must be addressed.
>>
>> So let it be specific:
>> NAK.
>>
>>>
>>> After this, I think Jason-JH will push another series with this
>>> binding
>>> patch.
>>
>> I don't know what do you mean here - another series on top of wrong
>> patch?
>>
>
> Hello Krzysztof,
>
> For this mt8195 mmsys binding separation, we still need to modify
> driver for this. The reason I send this patch is to confirm we can do
> this binding modification and I also think we can not pick this patch
> here.
>
> We will push another series and it contains modification of binding and
> drivers. (The series will push by Jason-JH Lin)
>

Sounds good. So lets wait for Jason-JH Lin to send this series and we can go on
with the review.

Thanks!
Matthias

> Maybe I should use "RFC" for this series, and I think it's more
> correct.
>
> BRs,
> Bo-Chen
>
>>> In Jason-JH's series, we will modify mmsys driver based on this.
>>> And I think we don't need to keep "mediatek,mt8195-mmsys" if we
>>> also
>>> modify mmsys drivers in the same series.
>>
>> This does not fux ABI break and broken bisectability.
>>
>>>
>>> Is it ok that postpones to pick this patch until we finish review
>>> follow-up series?
>>>
>>
>> No. You got a clear review to fix.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-08-26 17:40    [W:2.713 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site