On Wed, 2022-09-21 at 08:28 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 21/09/2022 06:16, Jason-JH Lin wrote:
> > 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 am not talking about it.
>
> >
> > I think this items could support the device node like:
> > foo {
> > compatible = "mediatek,mt8195-vdosys0", "mediatek,mt8195-mmsys",
> > "syscon";
> > }
> >
>
> Yes, this one ok.
>
> >
> > Or should I change the items like this?
> > - items:
> > - const: mediatek,mt8195-vdosys0
> > - enum:
> > - mediatek,mt8195-mmsys
> > - const: syscon
> >
>
> No, this does not look correct.
OK, I'll keep this one:
- items:
- const: mediatek,mt8195-vdosys0
- const: mediatek,mt8195-mmsys
- const: syscon
Thanks for the reviews.
>
> I asked why do you keep old mediatek,mt8195-mmsys compatible in the
> same
> place (the alone one), without making it deprecated?
- items:
- enum:
- mediatek,mt2701-mmsys
- mediatek,mt2712-mmsys
- mediatek,mt6765-mmsys
- mediatek,mt6779-mmsys
- mediatek,mt6797-mmsys
- mediatek,mt8167-mmsys
- mediatek,mt8173-mmsys
- mediatek,mt8183-mmsys
- mediatek,mt8186-mmsys
- mediatek,mt8192-mmsys
- mediatek,mt8195-mmsys
Do you mean this one can be deprecated?
I'm not sure if I should keep this after adding the new item.
If so, I can remove this at the next version.
- mediatek,mt8365-mmsys
- const: syscon
Regards,
Jason-JH.Lin
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
--
Jason-JH Lin <jason-jh.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
