Re: [PATCH v3 01/10] dt-bindings: gpu: mali-valhall-csf: add mediatek,mt8196-mali variant

[Nicolas Frattaroli <nicolas.frattaroli@collabora.com>]

On Thursday, 18 September 2025 02:30:09 Central European Summer Time Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 02:22:32PM +0200, Nicolas Frattaroli wrote:
> > The Mali-based GPU on the MediaTek MT8196 SoC uses a separate MCU to
> > control the power and frequency of the GPU.
> > 
> > It lets us omit the OPP tables from the device tree, as those can now be
> > enumerated at runtime from the MCU. It also means the mali GPU node
> > described in this binding does not have any clocks in this case, as all
> > clock control is delegated to the MCU.
> > 
> > Add the mediatek,mt8196-mali compatible, and a performance-domains
> > property which points to the MCU's device tree node in this case. It's
> > required on mt8196 devices.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Frattaroli <nicolas.frattaroli@collabora.com>
> > ---
> >  .../bindings/gpu/arm,mali-valhall-csf.yaml         | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-valhall-csf.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-valhall-csf.yaml
> > index 7ad5a3ffc5f5c753322eda9e74cc65de89d11c73..ccab2dd0ea852187e3ab75923e19739622b2b3b8 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-valhall-csf.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-valhall-csf.yaml
> > @@ -38,7 +38,6 @@ properties:
> >        - const: gpu
> >  
> >    clocks:
> > -    minItems: 1
> 
> I don't understand why.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 
> 

I am executing a Convex hull algorithm on the 3D space of "dt-bindings
maintainer opinions" to get a convex hull of acceptable dt-bindings
choices where two different choices are functionally equivalent.

With this additional opinion on the krzk axis, I now know that having
the base properties accurate for the general case is not required if
the per-compatible case sets the property to false anyway.

I hope no two opinions are collinear, as this would surely be my
undoing.

You get to pick which axis (X, Y, Z) you are. Right-hand rule, of
course.

Kind regards,
Nicolas Frattaroli