On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 at 02:54, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 4/10/2024 2:12 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 01:18:42PM -0700, Abhinav Kumar wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 4/10/2024 1:16 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 at 23:00, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 12/2/2023 1:40 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >>>>> Instead of having DPU-specific defines, switch to the definitions from > >>>>> the mdp_common.xml.h file. This is the preparation for merged of DPU and > >>>>> MDP format tables. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Adding MDP_***__ usages in DPU driver is quite confusing. > >>>> > >>>> Can we align to a common naming scheme such as DISP_***? > >>> > >>> No, it's not something display-generic. It is specific to MDP > >>> platforms. In the end DPU is a continuation of the MDP lineup, isn't > >>> it? > >>> > >> > >> No some aspects of the hw are completely different as you already know > >> between MDP4/MDP5 and DPU. Bringing back MDP usages into DPU does not seem > >> right. > > > > MDP4 is different, it's true. But there is a lot of common between MDP5 > > and DPU. Frakly speaking, I don't see an issue with using the constant > > that was defined for MDP5 for DPU layer. Especially since we are also > > going to use mdp_ functions for format handling. > > > > All the HW naming etc in the doc has migrated to DPU and in fact it only > makes sense to start using DPU for MDP5 as we plan to move mdp5 targets > to DPU anyway. Not the other way around. > > MDP4 remains different. > > How about MSM_DISP then? I dont get why this is MDP platform specific. > Because the term MDP no longer holds true for DPU. > > I am even looking for future chipsets. We cannot live with MDP5 names. > Have to think of generic names for formats. Another point: MDP_ is still frequently used in the DPU driver. See dpu_hwio.h, dpu_hw_catalog.h or dpu_hw_interrupts.c -- With best wishes Dmitry
