Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] drm/mediatek: Change disp/ddp term to mutex in mtk mutex driver
Matthias Brugger 於 2021年1月21日 週四 下午4:19寫道：
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 07:46:44AM +0800, Chun-Kuang Hu wrote:
> > Hi, Matthias:
> >
> > Matthias Brugger 於 2021年1月21日 週四 上午2:27寫道：
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 07:17:27AM +0800, Chun-Kuang Hu wrote:
> > > > From: CK Hu
> > > >
> > > > mtk mutex is used by both drm and mdp driver, so change disp/ddp term to
> > > > mutex to show that it's a common driver for drm and mdp.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: CK Hu
> > > > Signed-off-by: Chun-Kuang Hu
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_crtc.c | 30 +--
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c | 2 +-
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.h | 2 +-
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_mutex.c| 305
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_mutex.h| 26 +-
> > > > 5 files changed, 182 insertions(+), 183 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > [...]
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_mutex.c
> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_mutex.c
> > > > index 1c8a253f4788..98a060bf225d 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_mutex.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_mutex.c
> > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > -static const struct of_device_id ddp_driver_dt_match[] = {
> > > > +static const struct of_device_id mutex_driver_dt_match[] = {
> > > > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt2701-disp-mutex",
> > > > - .data = _ddp_driver_data},
> > > > + .data = _mutex_driver_data},
> > > > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt2712-disp-mutex",
> > > > - .data = _ddp_driver_data},
> > > > + .data = _mutex_driver_data},
> > > > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8167-disp-mutex",
> > > > - .data = _ddp_driver_data},
> > > > + .data = _mutex_driver_data},
> > > > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8173-disp-mutex",
> > > > - .data = _ddp_driver_data},
> > > > + .data = _mutex_driver_data},
> > > > {},
> > > > };
> > > > -MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, ddp_driver_dt_match);
> > > > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mutex_driver_dt_match);
> > >
> > > I think it would make sense in a follow-up patch to update the binding
> > > to use "mediatek,mt2701-mutex" to reflect that mutex is used for drm and
> > > mdp driver. Make sense?
> >
> > Yes, it make sense. I would try to update the binding, but I wonder
> > device tree should be backward compatible? Let's discuss in that
> > follow-up patches.
> >
>
> From my understanding, we will need to keep the of_device_id entries for
> the old binding in the driver (so that old DTs still work) while we
> should enforce the new binding. I'm not sure if the yaml has a option
> for out-of-date compatibles.
OK, I would do it so and remove out-f-date compatibles in yaml at
first to see any feedback.
Regards,
Chun-Kuang.
>
> Regards,
> Matthias
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] drm/mediatek: Change disp/ddp term to mutex in mtk mutex driver
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 07:46:44AM +0800, Chun-Kuang Hu wrote:
> Hi, Matthias:
>
> Matthias Brugger 於 2021年1月21日 週四 上午2:27寫道：
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 07:17:27AM +0800, Chun-Kuang Hu wrote:
> > > From: CK Hu
> > >
> > > mtk mutex is used by both drm and mdp driver, so change disp/ddp term to
> > > mutex to show that it's a common driver for drm and mdp.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: CK Hu
> > > Signed-off-by: Chun-Kuang Hu
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_crtc.c | 30 +--
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c | 2 +-
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.h | 2 +-
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_mutex.c| 305
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_mutex.h| 26 +-
> > > 5 files changed, 182 insertions(+), 183 deletions(-)
> > >
> > [...]
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_mutex.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_mutex.c
> > > index 1c8a253f4788..98a060bf225d 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_mutex.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_mutex.c
> > [...]
> > >
> > > -static const struct of_device_id ddp_driver_dt_match[] = {
> > > +static const struct of_device_id mutex_driver_dt_match[] = {
> > > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt2701-disp-mutex",
> > > - .data = _ddp_driver_data},
> > > + .data = _mutex_driver_data},
> > > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt2712-disp-mutex",
> > > - .data = _ddp_driver_data},
> > > + .data = _mutex_driver_data},
> > > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8167-disp-mutex",
> > > - .data = _ddp_driver_data},
> > > + .data = _mutex_driver_data},
> > > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8173-disp-mutex",
> > > - .data = _ddp_driver_data},
> > > + .data = _mutex_driver_data},
> > > {},
> > > };
> > > -MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, ddp_driver_dt_match);
> > > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mutex_driver_dt_match);
> >
> > I think it would make sense in a follow-up patch to update the binding
> > to use "mediatek,mt2701-mutex" to reflect that mutex is used for drm and
> > mdp driver. Make sense?
>
> Yes, it make sense. I would try to update the binding, but I wonder
> device tree should be backward compatible? Let's discuss in that
> follow-up patches.
>
From my understanding, we will need to keep the of_device_id entries for
the old binding in the driver (so that old DTs still work) while we
should enforce the new binding. I'm not sure if the yaml has a option
for out-of-date compatibles.
Regards,
Matthias
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] drm/mediatek: Change disp/ddp term to mutex in mtk mutex driver
Hi, Matthias:
Matthias Brugger 於 2021年1月21日 週四 上午2:27寫道：
>
> On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 07:17:27AM +0800, Chun-Kuang Hu wrote:
> > From: CK Hu
> >
> > mtk mutex is used by both drm and mdp driver, so change disp/ddp term to
> > mutex to show that it's a common driver for drm and mdp.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: CK Hu
> > Signed-off-by: Chun-Kuang Hu
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_crtc.c | 30 +--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.h | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_mutex.c| 305
> > drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_mutex.h| 26 +-
> > 5 files changed, 182 insertions(+), 183 deletions(-)
> >
> [...]
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_mutex.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_mutex.c
> > index 1c8a253f4788..98a060bf225d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_mutex.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_mutex.c
> [...]
> >
> > -static const struct of_device_id ddp_driver_dt_match[] = {
> > +static const struct of_device_id mutex_driver_dt_match[] = {
> > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt2701-disp-mutex",
> > - .data = _ddp_driver_data},
> > + .data = _mutex_driver_data},
> > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt2712-disp-mutex",
> > - .data = _ddp_driver_data},
> > + .data = _mutex_driver_data},
> > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8167-disp-mutex",
> > - .data = _ddp_driver_data},
> > + .data = _mutex_driver_data},
> > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8173-disp-mutex",
> > - .data = _ddp_driver_data},
> > + .data = _mutex_driver_data},
> > {},
> > };
> > -MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, ddp_driver_dt_match);
> > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mutex_driver_dt_match);
>
> I think it would make sense in a follow-up patch to update the binding
> to use "mediatek,mt2701-mutex" to reflect that mutex is used for drm and
> mdp driver. Make sense?
Yes, it make sense. I would try to update the binding, but I wonder
device tree should be backward compatible? Let's discuss in that
follow-up patches.
Regards,
Chun-Kuang.
>
> Regards,
> Matthias
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
[PATCH v2 3/5] drm/mediatek: Change disp/ddp term to mutex in mtk mutex driver
From: CK Hu
mtk mutex is used by both drm and mdp driver, so change disp/ddp term to
mutex to show that it's a common driver for drm and mdp.
Signed-off-by: CK Hu
Signed-off-by: Chun-Kuang Hu
---
drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_crtc.c | 30 +--
drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_drv.h | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_mutex.c| 305
drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_mutex.h| 26 +-
5 files changed, 182 insertions(+), 183 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_crtc.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_crtc.c
index fd97b7d195e3..bba87a036fa8 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_crtc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_crtc.c
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ struct mtk_drm_crtc {
#endif
struct device *mmsys_dev;
- struct mtk_disp_mutex *mutex;
+ struct mtk_mutex*mutex;
unsigned intddp_comp_nr;
struct mtk_ddp_comp **ddp_comp;
@@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ static void mtk_drm_crtc_destroy(struct drm_crtc *crtc)
{
struct mtk_drm_crtc *mtk_crtc = to_mtk_crtc(crtc);
- mtk_disp_mutex_put(mtk_crtc->mutex);
+ mtk_mutex_put(mtk_crtc->mutex);
drm_crtc_cleanup(crtc);
}
@@ -265,7 +265,7 @@ static int mtk_crtc_ddp_hw_init(struct mtk_drm_crtc
*mtk_crtc)
return ret;
}
- ret = mtk_disp_mutex_prepare(mtk_crtc->mutex);
+ ret = mtk_mutex_prepare(mtk_crtc->mutex);
if (ret < 0) {
DRM_ERROR("Failed to enable mutex clock: %d\n", ret);
goto err_pm_runtime_put;
@@ -281,11 +281,11 @@ static int mtk_crtc_ddp_hw_init(struct mtk_drm_crtc
*mtk_crtc)
mtk_mmsys_ddp_connect(mtk_crtc->mmsys_dev,
mtk_crtc->ddp_comp[i]->id,
mtk_crtc->ddp_comp[i + 1]->id);
- mtk_disp_mutex_add_comp(mtk_crtc->mutex,
+ mtk_mutex_add_comp(mtk_crtc->mutex,
mtk_crtc->ddp_comp[i]->id);
}
- mtk_disp_mutex_add_comp(mtk_crtc->mutex, mtk_crtc->ddp_comp[i]->id);
- mtk_disp_mutex_enable(mtk_crtc->mutex);
+ mtk_mutex_add_comp(mtk_crtc->mutex, mtk_crtc->ddp_comp[i]->id);
+ mtk_mutex_enable(mtk_crtc->mutex);
for (i = 0; i < mtk_crtc->ddp_comp_nr; i++) {
struct mtk_ddp_comp *comp = mtk_crtc->ddp_comp[i];
@@ -314,7 +314,7 @@ static int mtk_crtc_ddp_hw_init(struct mtk_drm_crtc
*mtk_crtc)
return 0;
err_mutex_unprepare:
- mtk_disp_mutex_unprepare(mtk_crtc->mutex);
+ mtk_mutex_unprepare(mtk_crtc->mutex);
err_pm_runtime_put:
pm_runtime_put(crtc->dev->dev);
return ret;
@@ -333,19 +333,19 @@ static void mtk_crtc_ddp_hw_fini(struct mtk_drm_crtc
*mtk_crtc)
}
for (i = 0; i < mtk_crtc->ddp_comp_nr; i++)
- mtk_disp_mutex_remove_comp(mtk_crtc->mutex,
+ mtk_mutex_remove_comp(mtk_crtc->mutex,
mtk_crtc->ddp_comp[i]->id);
- mtk_disp_mutex_disable(mtk_crtc->mutex);
+ mtk_mutex_disable(mtk_crtc->mutex);
for (i = 0; i < mtk_crtc->ddp_comp_nr - 1; i++) {
mtk_mmsys_ddp_disconnect(mtk_crtc->mmsys_dev,
mtk_crtc->ddp_comp[i]->id,
mtk_crtc->ddp_comp[i + 1]->id);
- mtk_disp_mutex_remove_comp(mtk_crtc->mutex,
+ mtk_mutex_remove_comp(mtk_crtc->mutex,
mtk_crtc->ddp_comp[i]->id);
}
- mtk_disp_mutex_remove_comp(mtk_crtc->mutex, mtk_crtc->ddp_comp[i]->id);
+ mtk_mutex_remove_comp(mtk_crtc->mutex, mtk_crtc->ddp_comp[i]->id);
mtk_crtc_ddp_clk_disable(mtk_crtc);
- mtk_disp_mutex_unprepare(mtk_crtc->mutex);
+ mtk_mutex_unprepare(mtk_crtc->mutex);
pm_runtime_put(drm->dev);
@@ -457,9 +457,9 @@ static void mtk_drm_crtc_hw_config(struct mtk_drm_crtc
*mtk_crtc)
mtk_crtc->pending_async_planes = true;
if (priv->data->shadow_register) {
- mtk_disp_mutex_acquire(mtk_crtc->mutex);
+ mtk_mutex_acquire(mtk_crtc->mutex);
mtk_crtc_ddp_config(crtc, NULL);
- mtk_disp_mutex_release(mtk_crtc->mutex);
+ mtk_mutex_release(mtk_crtc->mutex);
}
#if IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_MTK_CMDQ)
if (mtk_crtc->cmdq_client) {
@@ -773,7 +773,7 @@ int mtk_drm_crtc_create(struct drm_device *drm_dev,
if (!mtk_crtc->ddp_comp)
return -ENOMEM;
- mtk_crtc->mutex = mtk_disp_mutex_get(priv->mutex_dev, pipe);
+ mtk_crtc->mutex = mtk_mutex_get(priv->mutex_dev, pipe);
if (IS_ERR(mtk_crtc->mutex)) {
ret = PTR_ERR(mtk_crtc->mutex);
dev_err(dev, "Failed to get mutex: %d\n",
