From: "Jason-JH.Lin" <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Bo-Chen Chen <[email protected]>
---
Changes for v2:
1. Add hardware difference for VDOSYS0 and VDOSYS1 in commit message.
---
.../devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yaml | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yaml
index 6ad023eec193..bfbdd30d2092 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yaml
@@ -31,7 +31,8 @@ properties:
- mediatek,mt8183-mmsys
- mediatek,mt8186-mmsys
- mediatek,mt8192-mmsys
- - mediatek,mt8195-mmsys
+ - mediatek,mt8195-vdosys0
+ - mediatek,mt8195-vdosys1
- mediatek,mt8365-mmsys
- const: syscon
- items:
--
2.18.0
On 25/08/2022 12:14, Bo-Chen Chen wrote:
> From: "Jason-JH.Lin" <[email protected]>
>
> 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 <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Bo-Chen Chen <[email protected]>
> ---
Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On 25/08/2022 11:14, Bo-Chen Chen wrote:
> From: "Jason-JH.Lin" <[email protected]>
>
> 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 <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Bo-Chen Chen <[email protected]>
> ---
> Changes for v2:
> 1. Add hardware difference for VDOSYS0 and VDOSYS1 in commit message.
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yaml | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yaml
> index 6ad023eec193..bfbdd30d2092 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yaml
> @@ -31,7 +31,8 @@ properties:
> - mediatek,mt8183-mmsys
> - mediatek,mt8186-mmsys
> - mediatek,mt8192-mmsys
> - - mediatek,mt8195-mmsys
> + - mediatek,mt8195-vdosys0
Thanks for you patch. As I mentioned on v1, I propose to set
mediatek,mt8195-mmsys as fallback for mediatek,mt8195-vdosys0 to not break
backwards compatibility.
Apart from that, the binding change will need some changes to support the new
binding. Please provide these together with this patch.
Regards,
Matthias
> + - mediatek,mt8195-vdosys > - mediatek,mt8365-mmsys
> - const: syscon
> - items:
On Thu, 2022-08-25 at 22:57 +0800, Matthias Brugger wrote:
>
> On 25/08/2022 11:14, Bo-Chen Chen wrote:
> > From: "Jason-JH.Lin" <[email protected]>
> >
> > 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 <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Bo-Chen Chen <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > Changes for v2:
> > 1. Add hardware difference for VDOSYS0 and VDOSYS1 in commit
> > message.
> > ---
> > .../devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yaml |
> > 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git
> > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yam
> > l
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yam
> > l
> > index 6ad023eec193..bfbdd30d2092 100644
> > ---
> > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yam
> > l
> > +++
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yam
> > l
> > @@ -31,7 +31,8 @@ properties:
> > - mediatek,mt8183-mmsys
> > - mediatek,mt8186-mmsys
> > - mediatek,mt8192-mmsys
> > - - mediatek,mt8195-mmsys
> > + - mediatek,mt8195-vdosys0
>
> Thanks for you patch. As I mentioned on v1, I propose to set
> mediatek,mt8195-mmsys as fallback for mediatek,mt8195-vdosys0 to not
> break
> backwards compatibility.
>
> Apart from that, the binding change will need some changes to support
> the new
> binding. Please provide these together with this patch.
>
> Regards,
> Matthias
>
Hello Matthias,
Thanks for your comments.
The purpose of this patch is to confirm we can separate mt8195 mmsys
into two compatibles. I think this modification is accepted.
After this, I think Jason-JH will push another series with this binding
patch. In Jason-JH's series, we will modify mmsys driver based on this.
And I think we don't need to keep "mediatek,mt8195-mmsys" if we also
modify mmsys drivers in the same series.
Is it ok that postpones to pick this patch until we finish review
follow-up series?
BRs,
Bo-Chen
> > + - mediatek,mt8195-vdosys > -
> > mediatek,mt8365-mmsys
> > - const: syscon
> > - items:
On 26/08/2022 05:07, Bo-Chen Chen wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-08-25 at 22:57 +0800, Matthias Brugger wrote:
>>
>> On 25/08/2022 11:14, Bo-Chen Chen wrote:
>>> From: "Jason-JH.Lin" <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> 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 <[email protected]>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bo-Chen Chen <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> Changes for v2:
>>> 1. Add hardware difference for VDOSYS0 and VDOSYS1 in commit
>>> message.
>>> ---
>>> .../devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yaml |
>>> 3 ++-
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git
>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yam
>>> l
>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yam
>>> l
>>> index 6ad023eec193..bfbdd30d2092 100644
>>> ---
>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yam
>>> l
>>> +++
>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yam
>>> l
>>> @@ -31,7 +31,8 @@ properties:
>>> - mediatek,mt8183-mmsys
>>> - mediatek,mt8186-mmsys
>>> - mediatek,mt8192-mmsys
>>> - - mediatek,mt8195-mmsys
>>> + - mediatek,mt8195-vdosys0
>>
>> Thanks for you patch. As I mentioned on v1, I propose to set
>> mediatek,mt8195-mmsys as fallback for mediatek,mt8195-vdosys0 to not
>> break
>> backwards compatibility.
>>
>> Apart from that, the binding change will need some changes to support
>> the new
>> binding. Please provide these together with this patch.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Matthias
>>
>
> Hello Matthias,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
> The purpose of this patch is to confirm we can separate mt8195 mmsys
> into two compatibles. I think this modification is accepted.
No, it is not accepted following Matthias comments. You received my ack
based on assumption that ABI break is perfectly ok for platform
maintainer, as he has decisive voice. If anyone is not happy with a ABI
break, then his concerns must be addressed.
So let it be specific:
NAK.
>
> After this, I think Jason-JH will push another series with this binding
> patch.
I don't know what do you mean here - another series on top of wrong patch?
> In Jason-JH's series, we will modify mmsys driver based on this.
> And I think we don't need to keep "mediatek,mt8195-mmsys" if we also
> modify mmsys drivers in the same series.
This does not fux ABI break and broken bisectability.
>
> Is it ok that postpones to pick this patch until we finish review
> follow-up series?
>
No. You got a clear review to fix.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On Fri, 2022-08-26 at 15:00 +0800, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 26/08/2022 05:07, Bo-Chen Chen wrote:
> > On Thu, 2022-08-25 at 22:57 +0800, Matthias Brugger wrote:
> > >
> > > On 25/08/2022 11:14, Bo-Chen Chen wrote:
> > > > From: "Jason-JH.Lin" <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > 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 <[email protected]>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Bo-Chen Chen <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > > Changes for v2:
> > > > 1. Add hardware difference for VDOSYS0 and VDOSYS1 in commit
> > > > message.
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > .../devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yaml
> > > > |
> > > > 3 ++-
> > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git
> > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys
> > > > .yam
> > > > l
> > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys
> > > > .yam
> > > > l
> > > > index 6ad023eec193..bfbdd30d2092 100644
> > > > ---
> > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys
> > > > .yam
> > > > l
> > > > +++
> > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys
> > > > .yam
> > > > l
> > > > @@ -31,7 +31,8 @@ properties:
> > > > - mediatek,mt8183-mmsys
> > > > - mediatek,mt8186-mmsys
> > > > - mediatek,mt8192-mmsys
> > > > - - mediatek,mt8195-mmsys
> > > > + - mediatek,mt8195-vdosys0
> > >
> > > Thanks for you patch. As I mentioned on v1, I propose to set
> > > mediatek,mt8195-mmsys as fallback for mediatek,mt8195-vdosys0 to
> > > not
> > > break
> > > backwards compatibility.
> > >
> > > Apart from that, the binding change will need some changes to
> > > support
> > > the new
> > > binding. Please provide these together with this patch.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Matthias
> > >
> >
> > Hello Matthias,
> >
> > Thanks for your comments.
> > The purpose of this patch is to confirm we can separate mt8195
> > mmsys
> > into two compatibles. I think this modification is accepted.
>
> No, it is not accepted following Matthias comments. You received my
> ack
> based on assumption that ABI break is perfectly ok for platform
> maintainer, as he has decisive voice. If anyone is not happy with a
> ABI
> break, then his concerns must be addressed.
>
> So let it be specific:
> NAK.
>
> >
> > After this, I think Jason-JH will push another series with this
> > binding
> > patch.
>
> I don't know what do you mean here - another series on top of wrong
> patch?
>
Hello Krzysztof,
For this mt8195 mmsys binding separation, we still need to modify
driver for this. The reason I send this patch is to confirm we can do
this binding modification and I also think we can not pick this patch
here.
We will push another series and it contains modification of binding and
drivers. (The series will push by Jason-JH Lin)
Maybe I should use "RFC" for this series, and I think it's more
correct.
BRs,
Bo-Chen
> > In Jason-JH's series, we will modify mmsys driver based on this.
> > And I think we don't need to keep "mediatek,mt8195-mmsys" if we
> > also
> > modify mmsys drivers in the same series.
>
> This does not fux ABI break and broken bisectability.
>
> >
> > Is it ok that postpones to pick this patch until we finish review
> > follow-up series?
> >
>
> No. You got a clear review to fix.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
On 26/08/2022 09:13, Bo-Chen Chen wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-08-26 at 15:00 +0800, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 26/08/2022 05:07, Bo-Chen Chen wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2022-08-25 at 22:57 +0800, Matthias Brugger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 25/08/2022 11:14, Bo-Chen Chen wrote:
>>>>> From: "Jason-JH.Lin" <[email protected]>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 <[email protected]>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bo-Chen Chen <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Changes for v2:
>>>>> 1. Add hardware difference for VDOSYS0 and VDOSYS1 in commit
>>>>> message.
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yaml
>>>>> |
>>>>> 3 ++-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git
>>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys
>>>>> .yam
>>>>> l
>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys
>>>>> .yam
>>>>> l
>>>>> index 6ad023eec193..bfbdd30d2092 100644
>>>>> ---
>>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys
>>>>> .yam
>>>>> l
>>>>> +++
>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys
>>>>> .yam
>>>>> l
>>>>> @@ -31,7 +31,8 @@ properties:
>>>>> - mediatek,mt8183-mmsys
>>>>> - mediatek,mt8186-mmsys
>>>>> - mediatek,mt8192-mmsys
>>>>> - - mediatek,mt8195-mmsys
>>>>> + - mediatek,mt8195-vdosys0
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for you patch. As I mentioned on v1, I propose to set
>>>> mediatek,mt8195-mmsys as fallback for mediatek,mt8195-vdosys0 to
>>>> not
>>>> break
>>>> backwards compatibility.
>>>>
>>>> Apart from that, the binding change will need some changes to
>>>> support
>>>> the new
>>>> binding. Please provide these together with this patch.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Matthias
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hello Matthias,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your comments.
>>> The purpose of this patch is to confirm we can separate mt8195
>>> mmsys
>>> into two compatibles. I think this modification is accepted.
>>
>> No, it is not accepted following Matthias comments. You received my
>> ack
>> based on assumption that ABI break is perfectly ok for platform
>> maintainer, as he has decisive voice. If anyone is not happy with a
>> ABI
>> break, then his concerns must be addressed.
>>
>> So let it be specific:
>> NAK.
>>
>>>
>>> After this, I think Jason-JH will push another series with this
>>> binding
>>> patch.
>>
>> I don't know what do you mean here - another series on top of wrong
>> patch?
>>
>
> Hello Krzysztof,
>
> For this mt8195 mmsys binding separation, we still need to modify
> driver for this. The reason I send this patch is to confirm we can do
> this binding modification and I also think we can not pick this patch
> here.
>
> We will push another series and it contains modification of binding and
> drivers. (The series will push by Jason-JH Lin)
>
Sounds good. So lets wait for Jason-JH Lin to send this series and we can go on
with the review.
Thanks!
Matthias
> Maybe I should use "RFC" for this series, and I think it's more
> correct.
>
> BRs,
> Bo-Chen
>
>>> In Jason-JH's series, we will modify mmsys driver based on this.
>>> And I think we don't need to keep "mediatek,mt8195-mmsys" if we
>>> also
>>> modify mmsys drivers in the same series.
>>
>> This does not fux ABI break and broken bisectability.
>>
>>>
>>> Is it ok that postpones to pick this patch until we finish review
>>> follow-up series?
>>>
>>
>> No. You got a clear review to fix.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>
On 26/08/2022 17:39, Matthias Brugger wrote:
>
>
> On 26/08/2022 09:13, Bo-Chen Chen wrote:
>> On Fri, 2022-08-26 at 15:00 +0800, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 26/08/2022 05:07, Bo-Chen Chen wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2022-08-25 at 22:57 +0800, Matthias Brugger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 25/08/2022 11:14, Bo-Chen Chen wrote:
>>>>>> From: "Jason-JH.Lin" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 <[email protected]>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bo-Chen Chen <[email protected]>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Changes for v2:
>>>>>> 1. Add hardware difference for VDOSYS0 and VDOSYS1 in commit
>>>>>> message.
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yaml
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> 3 ++-
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git
>>>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys
>>>>>> .yam
>>>>>> l
>>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys
>>>>>> .yam
>>>>>> l
>>>>>> index 6ad023eec193..bfbdd30d2092 100644
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys
>>>>>> .yam
>>>>>> l
>>>>>> +++
>>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys
>>>>>> .yam
>>>>>> l
>>>>>> @@ -31,7 +31,8 @@ properties:
>>>>>> - mediatek,mt8183-mmsys
>>>>>> - mediatek,mt8186-mmsys
>>>>>> - mediatek,mt8192-mmsys
>>>>>> - - mediatek,mt8195-mmsys
>>>>>> + - mediatek,mt8195-vdosys0
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for you patch. As I mentioned on v1, I propose to set
>>>>> mediatek,mt8195-mmsys as fallback for mediatek,mt8195-vdosys0 to
>>>>> not
>>>>> break
>>>>> backwards compatibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apart from that, the binding change will need some changes to
>>>>> support
>>>>> the new
>>>>> binding. Please provide these together with this patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello Matthias,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your comments.
>>>> The purpose of this patch is to confirm we can separate mt8195
>>>> mmsys
>>>> into two compatibles. I think this modification is accepted.
>>>
>>> No, it is not accepted following Matthias comments. You received my
>>> ack
>>> based on assumption that ABI break is perfectly ok for platform
>>> maintainer, as he has decisive voice. If anyone is not happy with a
>>> ABI
>>> break, then his concerns must be addressed.
>>>
>>> So let it be specific:
>>> NAK.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> After this, I think Jason-JH will push another series with this
>>>> binding
>>>> patch.
>>>
>>> I don't know what do you mean here - another series on top of wrong
>>> patch?
>>>
>>
>> Hello Krzysztof,
>>
>> For this mt8195 mmsys binding separation, we still need to modify
>> driver for this. The reason I send this patch is to confirm we can do
>> this binding modification and I also think we can not pick this patch
>> here.
>>
>> We will push another series and it contains modification of binding and
>> drivers. (The series will push by Jason-JH Lin)
>>
>
> Sounds good. So lets wait for Jason-JH Lin to send this series and we can go on
> with the review.
>
Just to be sure, this has not happened yet, correct?
Regards,
Matthias
> Thanks!
> Matthias
>
>> Maybe I should use "RFC" for this series, and I think it's more
>> correct.
>>
>> BRs,
>> Bo-Chen
>>
>>>> In Jason-JH's series, we will modify mmsys driver based on this.
>>>> And I think we don't need to keep "mediatek,mt8195-mmsys" if we
>>>> also
>>>> modify mmsys drivers in the same series.
>>>
>>> This does not fux ABI break and broken bisectability.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is it ok that postpones to pick this patch until we finish review
>>>> follow-up series?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. You got a clear review to fix.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Krzysztof
>>
On Wed, 2022-09-14 at 16:32 +0200, Matthias Brugger wrote:
>
> On 26/08/2022 17:39, Matthias Brugger wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 26/08/2022 09:13, Bo-Chen Chen wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2022-08-26 at 15:00 +0800, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > On 26/08/2022 05:07, Bo-Chen Chen wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2022-08-25 at 22:57 +0800, Matthias Brugger wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 25/08/2022 11:14, Bo-Chen Chen wrote:
> > > > > > > From: "Jason-JH.Lin" <[email protected]>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bo-Chen Chen <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > Changes for v2:
> > > > > > > 1. Add hardware difference for VDOSYS0 and VDOSYS1 in
> > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > message.
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > .../devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yaml
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3 ++-
> > > > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek
> > > > > > > ,mmsys
> > > > > > > .yam
> > > > > > > l
> > > > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek
> > > > > > > ,mmsys
> > > > > > > .yam
> > > > > > > l
> > > > > > > index 6ad023eec193..bfbdd30d2092 100644
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek
> > > > > > > ,mmsys
> > > > > > > .yam
> > > > > > > l
> > > > > > > +++
> > > > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek
> > > > > > > ,mmsys
> > > > > > > .yam
> > > > > > > l
> > > > > > > @@ -31,7 +31,8 @@ properties:
> > > > > > > - mediatek,mt8183-mmsys
> > > > > > > - mediatek,mt8186-mmsys
> > > > > > > - mediatek,mt8192-mmsys
> > > > > > > - - mediatek,mt8195-mmsys
> > > > > > > + - mediatek,mt8195-vdosys0
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for you patch. As I mentioned on v1, I propose to
> > > > > > set
> > > > > > mediatek,mt8195-mmsys as fallback for mediatek,mt8195-
> > > > > > vdosys0 to
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > break
> > > > > > backwards compatibility.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Apart from that, the binding change will need some changes
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > support
> > > > > > the new
> > > > > > binding. Please provide these together with this patch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Matthias
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello Matthias,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for your comments.
> > > > > The purpose of this patch is to confirm we can separate
> > > > > mt8195
> > > > > mmsys
> > > > > into two compatibles. I think this modification is accepted.
> > > >
> > > > No, it is not accepted following Matthias comments. You
> > > > received my
> > > > ack
> > > > based on assumption that ABI break is perfectly ok for platform
> > > > maintainer, as he has decisive voice. If anyone is not happy
> > > > with a
> > > > ABI
> > > > break, then his concerns must be addressed.
> > > >
> > > > So let it be specific:
> > > > NAK.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > After this, I think Jason-JH will push another series with
> > > > > this
> > > > > binding
> > > > > patch.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know what do you mean here - another series on top of
> > > > wrong
> > > > patch?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hello Krzysztof,
> > >
> > > For this mt8195 mmsys binding separation, we still need to modify
> > > driver for this. The reason I send this patch is to confirm we
> > > can do
> > > this binding modification and I also think we can not pick this
> > > patch
> > > here.
> > >
> > > We will push another series and it contains modification of
> > > binding and
> > > drivers. (The series will push by Jason-JH Lin)
> > >
> >
> > Sounds good. So lets wait for Jason-JH Lin to send this series and
> > we can go on
> > with the review.
> >
>
> Just to be sure, this has not happened yet, correct?
>
> Regards,
> Matthias
Yes, sorry for the late reply to you.
I'll start to send this series at 9/19.
Regards,
Jason-JH.Lin
>
> > Thanks!
> > Matthias
> >
> > > Maybe I should use "RFC" for this series, and I think it's more
> > > correct.
> > >
> > > BRs,
> > > Bo-Chen
> > >
> > > > > In Jason-JH's series, we will modify mmsys driver based on
> > > > > this.
> > > > > And I think we don't need to keep "mediatek,mt8195-mmsys" if
> > > > > we
> > > > > also
> > > > > modify mmsys drivers in the same series.
> > > >
> > > > This does not fux ABI break and broken bisectability.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it ok that postpones to pick this patch until we finish
> > > > > review
> > > > > follow-up series?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No. You got a clear review to fix.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Krzysztof
--
Jason-JH Lin <[email protected]>