Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: arm: mediatek: mmsys: change compatible for MT8195

[Matthias Brugger]

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" <jason-jh.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 <jason-jh.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Bo-Chen Chen <rex-bc.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > 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