Matthias Brugger [off-list ref] 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:

quoted

Hi, Matthias:

Matthias Brugger [off-list ref] 於 2021年1月21日 週四 上午2:27寫道：

quoted

On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 07:17:27AM +0800, Chun-Kuang Hu wrote:

quoted

From: CK Hu <redacted>

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 <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Chun-Kuang Hu <chunkuang.hu@kernel.org>
---
 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(-)

[...]

quoted

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

[...]

quoted

-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 = &mt2701_ddp_driver_data},
+       .data = &mt2701_mutex_driver_data},
      { .compatible = "mediatek,mt2712-disp-mutex",
-       .data = &mt2712_ddp_driver_data},
+       .data = &mt2712_mutex_driver_data},
      { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8167-disp-mutex",
-       .data = &mt8167_ddp_driver_data},
+       .data = &mt8167_mutex_driver_data},
      { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8173-disp-mutex",
-       .data = &mt8173_ddp_driver_data},
+       .data = &mt8173_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for out-of-date compatibles.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

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel