linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] drm/mediatek: Change disp/ddp term to mutex in mtk mutex driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAAOTY__S2WMO9sUOP4NaObCdvtRNdLNe3VHrE2RbgHBM-gYosw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Jan 2021 07:13:06 +0800
From:   Chun-Kuang Hu <chunkuang.hu@...nel.org>
To:     Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...nel.org>
Cc:     Chun-Kuang Hu <chunkuang.hu@...nel.org>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        CK Hu <ck.hu@...iatek.com>,
        "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] drm/mediatek: Change disp/ddp term to mutex in mtk
 mutex driver

Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...nel.org> 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:
> > Hi, Matthias:
> >
> > Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...nel.org> 於 2021年1月21日 週四 上午2:27寫道：
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 07:17:27AM +0800, Chun-Kuang Hu wrote:
> > > > From: CK Hu <ck.hu@...iatek.com>
> > > >
> > > > 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 <ck.hu@...iatek.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Chun-Kuang Hu <chunkuang.hu@...nel.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(-)
> > > >
> > > [...]
> > > > 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
> > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > -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