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.
I asked why do you keep old mediatek,mt8195-mmsys compatible in the same
place (the alone one), without making it deprecated?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
