Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] dt-bindings: arm: mediatek: mmsys: Add OF graph support for board path
From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
Date: Thu Jul 25 2024 - 05:47:18 EST
Il 05/07/24 11:28, CK Hu (胡俊光) ha scritto:
On Tue, 2024-06-11 at 08:54 +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
Il 11/06/24 08:48, CK Hu (胡俊光) ha scritto:
On Mon, 2024-06-10 at 10:28 +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
Il 06/06/24 07:29, CK Hu (胡俊光) ha scritto:
Hi, Angelo:
On Wed, 2024-06-05 at 13:15 +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
Il 05/06/24 03:38, CK Hu (胡俊光) ha scritto:
Hi, Angelo:
On Tue, 2024-05-21 at 09:57 +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
Document OF graph on MMSYS/VDOSYS: this supports up to three DDP paths
per HW instance (so potentially up to six displays for multi-vdo SoCs).
The MMSYS or VDOSYS is always the first component in the DDP pipeline,
so it only supports an output port with multiple endpoints - where each
endpoint defines the starting point for one of the (currently three)
possible hardware paths.
Reviewed-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Alexandre Mergnat <amergnat@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Alexandre Mergnat <amergnat@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yaml | 28 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yaml
index b3c6888c1457..0ef67ca4122b 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,mmsys.yaml
@@ -93,6 +93,34 @@ properties:
'#reset-cells':
const: 1
+ port:
+ $ref: /schemas/graph.yaml#/properties/port
+ description:
+ Output port node. This port connects the MMSYS/VDOSYS output to
+ the first component of one display pipeline, for example one of
+ the available OVL or RDMA blocks.
+ Some MediaTek SoCs support multiple display outputs per MMSYS.
This patch looks good to me. Just want to share another information for you.
Here is an example that mmsys/vdosys could point to the display interface node.
vdosys0: syscon@1c01a000 {
mmsys-display-interface = <&dsi0>, <&dsi1>, <&dp_intf0>;
};
vdosys1: syscon@1c100000 {
mmsys-display-interface = <&dp_intf1>;
};
There is no conflict that mmsys/vdosys point to first component of one display pipeline or point to display interface.
Both could co-exist.
Hey CK,
yes, this could be an alternative to the OF graphs, and I'm sure that it'd work,
even though this kind of solution would still require partial hardcoding of the
display paths up until mmsys-display-interface (so, up until DSI0, or DSI1, etc).
The problem with a solution like this is that, well, even though it would work,
even if we ignore the suboptimal partial hardcoding, OF graphs are something
generic, while the mmsys-display-interface would be a MediaTek specific/custom
property.
In the end, reusing generic kernel apis/interfaces/etc is always preferred
compared to custom solutions, especially in this case, in which the generic
stuff is on-par (or actually, depending purely on personal opinions, superior).
As for the two to co-exist, I'm not sure that this is actually needed, as the
OF graphs are already (at the end of the graph) pointing to the display interface.
In any case, just as a reminder: if there will be any need to add any custom
MediaTek specific properties later, it's ok and we can do that at any time.
The alternative solution is using OF graphs to point display interface and use MediaTek specific property to first component:
vdosys0: syscon@1c01a000 {
ports {
port@0 {
endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <&dsi0_endpoint>;
};
};
port@1 {
endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <&dsi1_endpoint>;
};
};
port@2 {
endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <&dp_intf0_endpoint>;
};
};
};
display-first-component = <&ovl0>;
};
And I agree to it's better to keep only OF graphs property, so it would be
vdosys0: syscon@1c01a000 {
ports {
port@0 {
endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <&dsi0_endpoint>;
};
};
port@1 {
endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <&dsi1_endpoint>;
};
};
port@2 {
endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <&dp_intf0_endpoint>;
}
;
};
};
};
Maybe we could use OF graphs for both first component and display interface and drop using MediaTek specific property.
We could, or we can simply walk through the OF Graph in the driver and get the
display interface like that, as it's board-specific ;-)
...but anyway, let's see that later: after getting this series upstreamed, I will
convert all MediaTek boards (including Chromebooks) to use the graphs instead, and
you'll see that, at least for the currently supported boards, there's no need for
any custom property.
Also, setting the DSI0/1/dpintf endpoint to VDO0 is technically wrong, as that is
supposed to be the last one, and a graph is conceptually supposed to go from the
first to the last in sequence.
*if* we will ever need (probably not) to get the VDO0 node to point directly to
the last node for whatever reason, the right way would be the first one you said,
so, mediatek,mmsys-display-interface = <&dsi0>, <&dsi1>, etc etc
...or mediatek,mmsys-possible-displays = < ... phandles >
...or anyway, many other solutions are possible - but again, I think this is not
the right time to think about that. Knowing that there are eventual solutions for
any need that might arise in the future is enough, IMO :-)
This is one routing of display pipeline and the relation of VDOSYS0 with display pipeline.
+-- VDOSYS0 ---------------------------------------------+
| |
| |
DRAM -> IOMMU ---> OVL0 -> RDMA0 -> ... -> DSC0 -> MERGE0 -> DP_INTF0 ---->
| |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------+
Video data is read by IOMMU from DRAM and send to display pipeline. Then video data travel through first component to display interface.
VDOSYS0 manage each component in the pipeline include first component and display interface.
The management include clock gating, reset, video data input/output routing.
The relationship of VDOSYTS0 with first component is the same as the relationship of VDOSYS0 with display interface.
If VDOSYS0 is not suitable using OF graph point to display interface, VDOSYS0 is also not suitable using OF graph point to first component.
In the cases in which VDO goes directly to the display, it *is* possible to make it
point directly to the display.
In the cases in which the pipeline is larger, VDO still points to the display, but
only later in the pipeline.
Sorry I have just noticed your reply while looking for the status of this series.
I mean VDOSYS0 is not suitable 'using OF graph' to point to both display interface and first component.
I seriously don't get why you're saying that VDOSYS0 is not suitable for OF Graphs
and I'm sorry but I suspect that the reason is that you don't understand the
concept of what a graph defines, other than how can it be walked through by design.
So VDOSYS0 should use specific property to point to both display interface and first component.
Maybe
vdosys0 {
dma-device = <ovl0>;
display-interface = <&dsi0>, <&dsi1>, <&dp_intf0>;
};
What you just wrote here adds custom properties for no reason - as in, there is
no reason for vdosys0 to have two properties pointing one to the first component
and one to all of the possible display interfaces for vdosys0.
Provided a graph, that graph does express the OVL0 relationship with VDO0, and
it does express the relationship between OVL0 and the final display interface
-> through expressing the relationship between OVL0 and all of the middle
components until reaching the actual display interface. <-
Anyway, the proposed snippet either:
a. Invalidates the point of this series entirely, as in, graphs in this case are
implemented in order to stop hardcoding display paths for each board into the
driver; or
b. It is exactly the same as a graph, except with different properties and without
ports and endpoints.
Moreover, there is no advantage in setting all of the possible display interfaces
that are connectable to VDOSYS0 in a display-interface property:
from a board-specific perspective, the board cares only about the interfaces that
are *available to that board*, and not about any other.
If interfaces X and Y are available to a board, that board will have a graph for X
and a graph for Y, so they are both perfectly described with ... graphs!
...and even though the VDO0 (or the SoC, whatever) supports interface Z, if said
display interface is *not* present on the board, that interface will not be
described by any graph, because it does not pertain to that board, it's unused and
it's useless to describe (even though it would be possible to add it regardless of
whether it's usable or not on that board).
Last thing - I don't know if you have this doubt or not, but for the sake of making
the stream of information complete: even dual-dsi displays can be described with a
graph without any issue.
Regards,
Angelo
Regards,
CK
The job of the component in display pipeline is to process the video data,
but the job of VDOSYS0 is to manage (clock gating, reset, routing) the pipeline.
If the OF graph is to show the video data travel path, VDOSYS0 should not exist in the OF graph.
Regards,
CK
Cheers,
Angelo
Regards,
CK
Cheers!
Angelo
Regards,
CK
+ properties:
+ endpoint@0:
+ $ref: /schemas/graph.yaml#/properties/endpoint
+ description: Output to the primary display pipeline
+
+ endpoint@1:
+ $ref: /schemas/graph.yaml#/properties/endpoint
+ description: Output to the secondary display pipeline
+
+ endpoint@2:
+ $ref: /schemas/graph.yaml#/properties/endpoint
+ description: Output to the tertiary display pipeline
+
+ anyOf:
+ - required:
+ - endpoint@0
+ - required:
+ - endpoint@1
+ - required:
+ - endpoint@2
+
required:
- compatible
- reg