linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] soc: mediatek: mtk-mutex: Add support for MT8188 VPPSYS

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAC=S1niaYZ=NNTwfSrJPdj79uG_hmqGm=cz_Sis3Zrf9octsnw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 18:09:47 +0800
From: Fei Shao <fshao@...omium.org>
To: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
Cc: linux-media@...r.kernel.org, mchehab@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, 
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, 
	matthias.bgg@...il.com, amergnat@...libre.com, moudy.ho@...iatek.com, 
	hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl, sebastian.fricke@...labora.com, 
	u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de, chunkuang.hu@...nel.org, 
	p.zabel@...gutronix.de, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] soc: mediatek: mtk-mutex: Add support for MT8188 VPPSYS

Hi Angelo,

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 5:29 PM AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com> wrote:
>
> Add MT8188 VPPSYS0 and VPPSYS1 mutex info to driver data
>
> Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
> ---
>  drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 41 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.c b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.c
> index 73c256d3950b..b5af1fb5847e 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.c
> @@ -496,6 +496,39 @@ static const unsigned int mt8188_mutex_mod[DDP_COMPONENT_ID_MAX] = {
>         [DDP_COMPONENT_MERGE5] = MT8188_MUTEX_MOD_DISP1_VPP_MERGE4,
>  };
>
> +static const unsigned int mt8188_mdp_mutex_table_mod[MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MAX] = {
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_RDMA0] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_RDMA0,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_RDMA2] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_RDMA2,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_RDMA3] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_RDMA3,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_FG0] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_FG0,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_FG2] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_FG2,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_FG3] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_FG3,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_HDR0] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_HDR0,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_HDR2] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_HDR2,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_HDR3] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_HDR3,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_AAL0] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_AAL0,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_AAL2] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_AAL2,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_AAL3] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_AAL3,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_RSZ0] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_RSZ0,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_RSZ2] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_RSZ2,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_RSZ3] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_RSZ3,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_MERGE2] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_MERGE2,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_MERGE3] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_MERGE3,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_TDSHP0] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_TDSHP0,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_TDSHP2] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_TDSHP2,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_TDSHP3] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_TDSHP3,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_COLOR0] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_COLOR0,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_COLOR2] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_COLOR2,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_COLOR3] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_COLOR3,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_OVL0] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_OVL0,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_PAD0] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_PAD0,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_PAD2] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_PAD2,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_PAD3] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_PAD3,

I know it's too late since this is in the tree already, but I noticed
that MDP_COMP_TCC0 is added in the 4th patch but not here.
Is that expected?

Everything else looks nice, so just a record in the mailing list:
Reviewed-by: Fei Shao <fshao@...omium.org>

Regards,
Fei


> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_WROT0] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_WROT0,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_WROT2] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_WROT2,
> +       [MUTEX_MOD_IDX_MDP_WROT3] = MT8195_MUTEX_MOD_MDP_WROT3,
> +};
> +
>  static const unsigned int mt8192_mutex_mod[DDP_COMPONENT_ID_MAX] = {
>         [DDP_COMPONENT_AAL0] = MT8192_MUTEX_MOD_DISP_AAL0,
>         [DDP_COMPONENT_CCORR] = MT8192_MUTEX_MOD_DISP_CCORR0,
> @@ -735,6 +768,13 @@ static const struct mtk_mutex_data mt8188_mutex_driver_data = {
>         .mutex_sof_reg = MT8183_MUTEX0_SOF0,
>  };
>
> +static const struct mtk_mutex_data mt8188_vpp_mutex_driver_data = {
> +       .mutex_sof = mt8188_mutex_sof,
> +       .mutex_mod_reg = MT8183_MUTEX0_MOD0,
> +       .mutex_sof_reg = MT8183_MUTEX0_SOF0,
> +       .mutex_table_mod = mt8188_mdp_mutex_table_mod,
> +};
> +
>  static const struct mtk_mutex_data mt8192_mutex_driver_data = {
>         .mutex_mod = mt8192_mutex_mod,
>         .mutex_sof = mt8183_mutex_sof,
> @@ -1089,6 +1129,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id mutex_driver_dt_match[] = {
>         { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8186-disp-mutex", .data = &mt8186_mutex_driver_data },
>         { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8186-mdp3-mutex", .data = &mt8186_mdp_mutex_driver_data },
>         { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8188-disp-mutex", .data = &mt8188_mutex_driver_data },
> +       { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8188-vpp-mutex",  .data = &mt8188_vpp_mutex_driver_data },
>         { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8192-disp-mutex", .data = &mt8192_mutex_driver_data },
>         { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8195-disp-mutex", .data = &mt8195_mutex_driver_data },
>         { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8195-vpp-mutex",  .data = &mt8195_vpp_mutex_driver_data },
> --
> 2.44.0
>
>