On 2022-08-26 12:16:40, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On 05/08/2022 15:24, Marijn Suijten wrote: > > On 2022-08-05 14:56:30, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >> The commit 6874f48bb8b0 ("drm/msm: make mdp5/dpu devices master > >> components") changed the MDP5 driver to look for the interconnect paths > >> in the MDSS device rather than in the MDP5 device itself. This was left > >> unnoticed since on my testing devices the interconnects probably didn't > >> reach the sync state. > >> > >> Rather than just using the MDP5 device for ICC path lookups for the MDP5 > >> devices, introduce an additional helper to check both MDP5/DPU and MDSS > >> nodes. This will be helpful for the MDP5->DPU conversion, since the > >> driver will have to check both nodes. > >> > >> Fixes: 6874f48bb8b0 ("drm/msm: make mdp5/dpu devices master components") > >> Reported-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Reported-by: Yassine Oudjana <y.oudjana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Tested-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # On sdm630 > > > > But I'm not sure about giving my Reviewed-by to this, as I'd rather > > *correct* the DT bindings for sdm630 and msm8996 to provide > > interconnects in the MDSS node unless there are strong reasons not to > > (and I don't consider "backwards compatibility" to be one, this binding > > "never even existed" if mdp5.txt is to be believed). > > As a kind of a joke, I'd prefer to have interconnects in the mdp/dpu > device node. In the end, the interconnects describe the path between the > display controller and the DDR, not the path between the whole MDSS and DDR. > > So, for next chipsets I'd vote to move icc to dpu/mdp node (and maybe > even move existing inerconnects to the dpu node). Sure. In that case, do you want to rework this patch / code again to only look in the DPU/MDP, and not at MDSS at all? (Or is that another DT API break we'd rather not make?) - Marijn