On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 at 04:20, Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > > I expect MSM_DISP to be applicable to all MSM displays, even if e.g. > at some point DPU2 switches colour component encoding. > > > Because the term MDP no longer holds true for DPU. > > The XML is still called mdp_common. And the functions are in the mdp_ > namespace. I don't think we should be changing them just because the > name has changed. > Likewise if MDP3 is not compatible with these definitions (to be > honest, I didn't check) I still don't think we should change these > names. > > > I am even looking for future chipsets. We cannot live with MDP5 names. > > Have to think of generic names for formats. > > Ok, I'm open for suggestions from your side. My proposal: MDPU? Neither MDP nor DPU. -- With best wishes Dmitry
