Hi Krzysztof,
Thanks for the reviews.
On Tue, 2022-09-20 at 17:25 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 20/09/2022 16:01, Jason-JH.Lin wrote:
> > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Bo-Chen Chen <rex-bc.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > .../devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yaml | 4
> > ++++
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git
> > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yam
> > l
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yam
> > l
> > index 6ad023eec193..df9184b6772c 100644
> > ---
> > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yam
> > l
> > +++
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yam
> > l
> > @@ -38,6 +38,10 @@ properties:
> > - const: mediatek,mt7623-mmsys
> > - const: mediatek,mt2701-mmsys
> > - const: syscon
> > + - items:
> > + - const: mediatek,mt8195-vdosys0
> > + - const: mediatek,mt8195-mmsys
> > + - const: syscon
>
> and why mediatek,mt8195-mmsys is kept as non-deprecated?
Shouldn't we keep this for fallback compatible?
I think this items could support the device node like:
foo {
compatible = "mediatek,mt8195-vdosys0", "mediatek,mt8195-mmsys",
"syscon";
}
Or should I change the items like this?
- items:
- const: mediatek,mt8195-vdosys0
- enum:
- mediatek,mt8195-mmsys
- const: syscon
Regards,
Jason-JH.Lin
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
--
Jason-JH Lin <jason-jh.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
