From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yongqiang Niu Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/18] drm/mediatek: redefine mtk_ddp_sout_sel Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 10:06:16 +0800 Message-ID: <1552615576.31200.19.camel@mhfsdcap03> References: <1545638931-24938-1-git-send-email-yongqiang.niu@mediatek.com> <1545638931-24938-4-git-send-email-yongqiang.niu@mediatek.com> Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Nicolas Boichat Cc: CK Hu , Philipp Zabel , David Airlie , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Matthias Brugger , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, lkml , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm Mailing List List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org On Tue, 2018-12-25 at 11:57 +0800, Nicolas Boichat wrote: > On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 6:52 PM Yongqiang Niu > wrote: > > > > This patch redefine mtk_ddp_sout_sel > > Can you describe a bit more why you are making this change? the format of "mtk_ddp_sout_sel"was not flexible, after we add more mediatek SOC support, that will be redundant set this function format like mtk_ddp_mout_en and mtk_ddp_sel_in > > > Signed-off-by: Yongqiang Niu > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_ddp.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++------------ > > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_ddp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_ddp.c > > index adb37e4..592f852 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_ddp.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_drm_ddp.c > > @@ -405,21 +405,27 @@ static unsigned int mtk_ddp_sel_in(enum mtk_ddp_comp_id cur, > > return value; > > } > > > > -static void mtk_ddp_sout_sel(void __iomem *config_regs, > > - enum mtk_ddp_comp_id cur, > > - enum mtk_ddp_comp_id next) > > +static unsigned int mtk_ddp_sout_sel(void __iomem *config_regs, > > You don't use config_regs anymore, drop it. ok, will drop it in next version > > > + enum mtk_ddp_comp_id cur, > > + enum mtk_ddp_comp_id next, > > + unsigned int *addr) > > { > > + unsigned int value; > > + > > if (cur == DDP_COMPONENT_BLS && next == DDP_COMPONENT_DSI0) { > > - writel_relaxed(BLS_TO_DSI_RDMA1_TO_DPI1, > > - config_regs + DISP_REG_CONFIG_OUT_SEL); > > + *addr = DISP_REG_CONFIG_OUT_SEL; > > + value = BLS_TO_DSI_RDMA1_TO_DPI1; > > You can directly return BLS_TO_DSI_RDMA1_TO_DPI1. just format this like mtk_ddp_mout_en and mtk_ddp_sel_in > > > } else if (cur == DDP_COMPONENT_BLS && next == DDP_COMPONENT_DPI0) { > > - writel_relaxed(BLS_TO_DPI_RDMA1_TO_DSI, > > - config_regs + DISP_REG_CONFIG_OUT_SEL); > > - writel_relaxed(DSI_SEL_IN_RDMA, > > - config_regs + DISP_REG_CONFIG_DSI_SEL); > > - writel_relaxed(DPI_SEL_IN_BLS, > > - config_regs + DISP_REG_CONFIG_DPI_SEL); > > + *addr = DISP_REG_CONFIG_OUT_SEL; > > + value = BLS_TO_DPI_RDMA1_TO_DSI; > > I (kind of) understand the change above, as you still end up writing > BLS_TO_DSI_RDMA1_TO_DPI1 in DISP_REG_CONFIG_OUT_SEL. > > This changes the behaviour, as now you only write > BLS_TO_DPI_RDMA1_TO_DSI to DISP_REG_CONFIG_OUT_SEL, but the previous > revision of the code would also write to DISP_REG_CONFIG_DSI_SEL and > DISP_REG_CONFIG_DPI_SEL. Why? > DISP_REG_CONFIG_DSI_SEL set in the next lines. DPI_SEL_IN_BLS is 0 for DISP_REG_CONFIG_DPI_SEL set, and hardware default setting is also 0, so this one is no need anymore > > + } else if (cur == DDP_COMPONENT_RDMA1 && next == DDP_COMPONENT_DSI0) { > > + *addr = DISP_REG_CONFIG_DSI_SEL; > > + value = DSI_SEL_IN_RDMA; > > + } else { > > + value = 0; > > } > > + > > + return value; > > } > > > > void mtk_ddp_add_comp_to_path(void __iomem *config_regs, > > @@ -434,7 +440,9 @@ void mtk_ddp_add_comp_to_path(void __iomem *config_regs, > > writel_relaxed(reg, config_regs + addr); > > } > > > > - mtk_ddp_sout_sel(config_regs, cur, next); > > + value = mtk_ddp_sout_sel(cur, next, &addr); > > + if (value) > > + writel_relaxed(value, config_regs + addr); > > Why this change? I don't see mtk_ddp_sout_sel being used later in the > series, so I'm not sure why we don't directly write the value into the > register. > in the patch "[PATCH 04/18] drm/mediatek: move rdma sout from mtk_ddp_mout_en into mtk_ddp_sout_sel", i moved all rdma out to here, rdma only have single out, no multi out. if keep this format, there will many writel_relaxed in mtk_ddp_sout_sel. and modify this format like mtk_ddp_mout_en and mtk_ddp_sel_in looks better. > > > > value = mtk_ddp_sel_in(cur, next, &addr); > > if (value) { > > -- > > 1.8.1.1.dirty > > _______________________________________________ > > dri-devel mailing list > > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel