From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753018AbbEDNYU (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2015 09:24:20 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-f170.google.com ([209.85.192.170]:36111 "EHLO mail-pd0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752675AbbEDNYM (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2015 09:24:12 -0400 Message-ID: <554772F6.3020003@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 22:24:06 +0900 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrzej Hajda , Daniel Stone CC: Inki Dae , linux-samsung-soc , Seung-Woo Kim , Linux Kernel Mailing List , dri-devel , Kyungmin Park , Kukjin Kim , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/exynos: Fix build breakage on !DRM_EXYNOS_FIMD References: <1430539706-2945-1-git-send-email-k.kozlowski.k@gmail.com> <55472339.8040408@samsung.com> <5547696D.8000300@gmail.com> <554770E1.2000401@samsung.com> In-Reply-To: <554770E1.2000401@samsung.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org W dniu 04.05.2015 o 22:15, Andrzej Hajda pisze: > Hi, > > > On 05/04/2015 02:43 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> 2015-05-04 20:34 GMT+09:00 Daniel Stone : >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 4 May 2015 at 08:43, Inki Dae wrote: >>>> On 2015년 05월 02일 13:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> Selecting CONFIG_FB_S3C disables CONFIG_DRM_EXYNOS_FIMD leading to build >>>>> error: >>>> >>>> No, eDP has no any dependency of FIMD but DECON. Just add dependency >>>> code like below, >>>> >>>> config DRM_EXYNOS7_DECON >>>> bool "Exynos DRM DECON" >>>> - depends on DRM_EXYNOS >>>> + depends on DRM_EXYNOS && !FB_S3C >> >> Actually my commit message was not detailed enough. The FB_S3C here >> won't solve the issue because you may: >> 1, disable FIMD and FB_S3C, >> 2, enabke DECON and DP, >> and it won't compile. >> >> Currently the FIMD must be enabled if DRM_EXYNOS_DP is enabled. >> >>> >>> But it does clearly and explicitly call fimd_dp_clock_enable from >>> exynos_dp_powero{n,ff}. So the dependency you're proposing seems >>> backwards: it's not an expression of the requirements of the current >>> code (that FIMD DP code be available, i.e. CONFIG_DRM_EXYNOS_FIMD is >>> selected), but an indirect expression of another dependency >>> (CONFIG_FB_S3C disables CONFIG_DRM_EXYNOS_FIMD, so disable >>> CONFIG_FB_S3C). >>> >>> Additionally, as the call comes from exynos_dp_core.c, which is built >>> by CONFIG_DRM_EXYNOS_DP (an explicitly user-selectable option), why >>> shouldn't the dependency be there? Ah, because the dependency on DP is >>> for (DECON || FIMD), but as DECON doesn't provide >>> fimd_dp_clock_enable(), it doesn't seem like it would compile if you >>> selected DECON and not FIMD. >>> >>> So, for me, the cleanest solution would be config DRM_EXYNOS_DP gains >>> a hard dependency on DRM_EXYNOS_FIMD, at least until it can be fixed >>> to compile without FIMD. >> >> Right, you correctly pointed current dependencies. Still it looks little >> hacky because EXYNOS_DP may work with FIMD or DECON. > > Are you sure? I have not seen any chipset having DECON and DP. In all > chipsets known to me DP is always accompanied by FIMD. I guess it can > change in the future, but for now hard dependency on FIMD seems to be OK > - it just reflects hardware design. > Of course this is just my humble opinion :) OK, so my next question would be: does DECON requires similar clock handling like FIMD on certain SoCs? In other words - does something like fimd_dp_clock_enable() have any sense in context of DECON? Best regards, Krzysztof From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/exynos: Fix build breakage on !DRM_EXYNOS_FIMD Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 22:24:06 +0900 Message-ID: <554772F6.3020003@gmail.com> References: <1430539706-2945-1-git-send-email-k.kozlowski.k@gmail.com> <55472339.8040408@samsung.com> <5547696D.8000300@gmail.com> <554770E1.2000401@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail-pd0-f170.google.com ([209.85.192.170]:36111 "EHLO mail-pd0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752675AbbEDNYM (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2015 09:24:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <554770E1.2000401@samsung.com> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Andrzej Hajda , Daniel Stone Cc: Inki Dae , linux-samsung-soc , Seung-Woo Kim , Linux Kernel Mailing List , dri-devel , Kyungmin Park , Kukjin Kim , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" W dniu 04.05.2015 o 22:15, Andrzej Hajda pisze: > Hi, >=20 >=20 > On 05/04/2015 02:43 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> 2015-05-04 20:34 GMT+09:00 Daniel Stone : >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 4 May 2015 at 08:43, Inki Dae wrote: >>>> On 2015=EB=85=84 05=EC=9B=94 02=EC=9D=BC 13:08, Krzysztof Kozlowsk= i wrote: >>>>> Selecting CONFIG_FB_S3C disables CONFIG_DRM_EXYNOS_FIMD leading t= o build >>>>> error: >>>> >>>> No, eDP has no any dependency of FIMD but DECON. Just add dependen= cy >>>> code like below, >>>> >>>> config DRM_EXYNOS7_DECON >>>> bool "Exynos DRM DECON" >>>> - depends on DRM_EXYNOS >>>> + depends on DRM_EXYNOS && !FB_S3C >> >> Actually my commit message was not detailed enough. The FB_S3C here >> won't solve the issue because you may: >> 1, disable FIMD and FB_S3C, >> 2, enabke DECON and DP, >> and it won't compile. >> >> Currently the FIMD must be enabled if DRM_EXYNOS_DP is enabled. >> >>> >>> But it does clearly and explicitly call fimd_dp_clock_enable from >>> exynos_dp_powero{n,ff}. So the dependency you're proposing seems >>> backwards: it's not an expression of the requirements of the curren= t >>> code (that FIMD DP code be available, i.e. CONFIG_DRM_EXYNOS_FIMD i= s >>> selected), but an indirect expression of another dependency >>> (CONFIG_FB_S3C disables CONFIG_DRM_EXYNOS_FIMD, so disable >>> CONFIG_FB_S3C). >>> >>> Additionally, as the call comes from exynos_dp_core.c, which is bui= lt >>> by CONFIG_DRM_EXYNOS_DP (an explicitly user-selectable option), why >>> shouldn't the dependency be there? Ah, because the dependency on DP= is >>> for (DECON || FIMD), but as DECON doesn't provide >>> fimd_dp_clock_enable(), it doesn't seem like it would compile if yo= u >>> selected DECON and not FIMD. >>> >>> So, for me, the cleanest solution would be config DRM_EXYNOS_DP gai= ns >>> a hard dependency on DRM_EXYNOS_FIMD, at least until it can be fixe= d >>> to compile without FIMD. >> >> Right, you correctly pointed current dependencies. Still it looks li= ttle >> hacky because EXYNOS_DP may work with FIMD or DECON.=20 >=20 > Are you sure? I have not seen any chipset having DECON and DP. In all > chipsets known to me DP is always accompanied by FIMD. I guess it can > change in the future, but for now hard dependency on FIMD seems to be= OK > - it just reflects hardware design. > Of course this is just my humble opinion :) OK, so my next question would be: does DECON requires similar clock handling like FIMD on certain SoCs? In other words - does something lik= e fimd_dp_clock_enable() have any sense in context of DECON? Best regards, Krzysztof From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: k.kozlowski.k@gmail.com (Krzysztof Kozlowski) Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 22:24:06 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] drm/exynos: Fix build breakage on !DRM_EXYNOS_FIMD In-Reply-To: <554770E1.2000401@samsung.com> References: <1430539706-2945-1-git-send-email-k.kozlowski.k@gmail.com> <55472339.8040408@samsung.com> <5547696D.8000300@gmail.com> <554770E1.2000401@samsung.com> Message-ID: <554772F6.3020003@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org W dniu 04.05.2015 o 22:15, Andrzej Hajda pisze: > Hi, > > > On 05/04/2015 02:43 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> 2015-05-04 20:34 GMT+09:00 Daniel Stone : >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 4 May 2015 at 08:43, Inki Dae wrote: >>>> On 2015? 05? 02? 13:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> Selecting CONFIG_FB_S3C disables CONFIG_DRM_EXYNOS_FIMD leading to build >>>>> error: >>>> >>>> No, eDP has no any dependency of FIMD but DECON. Just add dependency >>>> code like below, >>>> >>>> config DRM_EXYNOS7_DECON >>>> bool "Exynos DRM DECON" >>>> - depends on DRM_EXYNOS >>>> + depends on DRM_EXYNOS && !FB_S3C >> >> Actually my commit message was not detailed enough. The FB_S3C here >> won't solve the issue because you may: >> 1, disable FIMD and FB_S3C, >> 2, enabke DECON and DP, >> and it won't compile. >> >> Currently the FIMD must be enabled if DRM_EXYNOS_DP is enabled. >> >>> >>> But it does clearly and explicitly call fimd_dp_clock_enable from >>> exynos_dp_powero{n,ff}. So the dependency you're proposing seems >>> backwards: it's not an expression of the requirements of the current >>> code (that FIMD DP code be available, i.e. CONFIG_DRM_EXYNOS_FIMD is >>> selected), but an indirect expression of another dependency >>> (CONFIG_FB_S3C disables CONFIG_DRM_EXYNOS_FIMD, so disable >>> CONFIG_FB_S3C). >>> >>> Additionally, as the call comes from exynos_dp_core.c, which is built >>> by CONFIG_DRM_EXYNOS_DP (an explicitly user-selectable option), why >>> shouldn't the dependency be there? Ah, because the dependency on DP is >>> for (DECON || FIMD), but as DECON doesn't provide >>> fimd_dp_clock_enable(), it doesn't seem like it would compile if you >>> selected DECON and not FIMD. >>> >>> So, for me, the cleanest solution would be config DRM_EXYNOS_DP gains >>> a hard dependency on DRM_EXYNOS_FIMD, at least until it can be fixed >>> to compile without FIMD. >> >> Right, you correctly pointed current dependencies. Still it looks little >> hacky because EXYNOS_DP may work with FIMD or DECON. > > Are you sure? I have not seen any chipset having DECON and DP. In all > chipsets known to me DP is always accompanied by FIMD. I guess it can > change in the future, but for now hard dependency on FIMD seems to be OK > - it just reflects hardware design. > Of course this is just my humble opinion :) OK, so my next question would be: does DECON requires similar clock handling like FIMD on certain SoCs? In other words - does something like fimd_dp_clock_enable() have any sense in context of DECON? Best regards, Krzysztof