Dear Nicolas, Thanks for the review. On Thu, 2022-11-03 at 17:28 -0400, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote: > On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 11:26:09AM +0800, Nancy.Lin wrote: > > Add drm ovl_adaptor sub driver. Bring up ovl_adaptor sub driver if > > the component exists in the path. > > > > Signed-off-by: Nancy.Lin <nancy.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno < > > angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: CK Hu <ck.hu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Tested-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno < > > angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Tested-by: Bo-Chen Chen <rex-bc.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Tested-by: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Change-Id: I0501f3c80e78ec8279366cba9c137a2edd7a852e > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_crtc.c | 61 ++++----- > > drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_crtc.h | 2 +- > > drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_ddp_comp.c | 129 ++++++++++++-- > > ------ > > drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_ddp_comp.h | 50 +++++++- > > drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c | 78 ++++++------ > > drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.h | 12 +- > > 6 files changed, 209 insertions(+), 123 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_crtc.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_crtc.c > > index 30dcb65d8a5a..ce5617ad04cb 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_crtc.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_crtc.c > > [..] > > int mtk_drm_crtc_create(struct drm_device *drm_dev, > > - const enum mtk_ddp_comp_id *path, unsigned int > > path_len, > > + const unsigned int *path, unsigned int > > path_len, > > Hi Nancy, > > why is 'enum mtk_ddp_comp_id' being changed to 'unsigned int' > throughout this > patch? Was this intentional? > > I saw that this change happened between v16 [1] and v17 [2], but I > didn't see > any reply or mention about this in the commit message or cover > letter. > > Thanks, > Nícolas > > [1] > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220318142009.2796-21-nancy.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ > [2] > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220416020749.29010-20-nancy.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ The change is for the review in [1] to expose each mod instead of ovl adaptor to mtk_mutex. Ovl adaptor is an application that combine these mod to achieve ovl function, and it's not a real component in mtk_mmsys/mtk_mutex. For the above comment, I discussed the solution with MediaTek DRM reviewer CK.Hu internally. 1. remove the DDP_COMPONENT_OVL_ADAPTOR in enum mtk_ddp_comp_id{} (ref [2]) 2. add DRM driver component define "DDP_COMPONENT_DRM_OVL_ADAPTOR" in mtk_drm_drv.h (ref[3]) 3. replace mmsys compoent DDP_COMPONENT_OVL_ADAPTOR with DRM driver compoent DDP_COMPONENT_DRM_OVL_ADAPTOR in drm mt8195_mtk_ddp_ext[] path array. (ref[3] - mtk_drm_drv.c) static const unsigned int mt8195_mtk_ddp_ext[] = { DDP_COMPONENT_DRM_OVL_ADAPTOR, DDP_COMPONENT_MERGE5, DDP_COMPONENT_DP_INTF1, }; Because the DDP_COMPONENT_DRM_OVL_ADAPTOR is not a real mmsys component, change to use "unsigned int" instead of "enum mtk_ddp_comp_id{}" [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mediatek/patch/20220318142009.2796-10-nancy.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ [2] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mediatek/patch/20220318142009.2796-5-nancy.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ [3] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mediatek/patch/20221103032610.9217-7-nancy.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ Thanks, Nancy
