Re: [PATCH v3,3/3] drm/mediatek: dp: Add the audio divider to mtk_dp_data struct

[Alexandre Mergnat <amergnat@baylibre.com>]

On 20/07/2023 13:54, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Il 20/07/23 12:14, Alexandre Mergnat ha scritto:
>>
>>
>> On 20/07/2023 10:26, Shuijing Li wrote:
>>> Due to the difference of HW, different dividers need to be set.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Shuijing Li <shuijing.li@mediatek.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jitao Shi <jitao.shi@mediatek.com>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v3:
>>> Separate these two things into two different patches.
>>> per suggestion from the previous thread:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/e2ad22bcba31797f38a12a488d4246a01bf0cb2e.camel@mediatek.com/
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> - change the variables' name to be more descriptive
>>> - add a comment that describes the function of 
>>> mtk_dp_audio_sample_arrange
>>> - reduce indentation by doing the inverse check
>>> - add a definition of some bits
>>> - add support for mediatek, mt8188-edp-tx
>>> per suggestion from the previous thread:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ac0fcec9-a2fe-06cc-c727-189ef7babe9c@collabora.com/
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_dp.c     | 7 ++++++-
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_dp_reg.h | 1 +
>>>   2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
...
>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_dp_reg.h
>>> index f38d6ff12afe..6d7f0405867e 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_dp_reg.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_dp_reg.h
>>> @@ -162,6 +162,7 @@
>>>   #define AUDIO_M_CODE_MULT_DIV_SEL_DP_ENC0_P0_MUL_2    (1 << 8)
>>>   #define AUDIO_M_CODE_MULT_DIV_SEL_DP_ENC0_P0_MUL_4    (2 << 8)
>>>   #define AUDIO_M_CODE_MULT_DIV_SEL_DP_ENC0_P0_MUL_8    (3 << 8)
>>> +#define MT8188_AUDIO_M_CODE_MULT_DIV_SEL_DP_ENC0_P0_DIV_2    (4 << 8)
>>
>> IMO, it's a bit weird to have SoC specific define in the generic header.
>> Are you sure this bit is only available for MT8188 ?
>>
> 
> Eh, the P0_DIV2 bit is 5<<8 for MT8195, while for 8188 it's 4<<8, 
> clearly :-)
> 

Ok then, to avoid this kind of issue for other SoCs in the future, is 
that make sense for you to do a SoC specific header file beside the 
generic one?

>>>   #define AUDIO_M_CODE_MULT_DIV_SEL_DP_ENC0_P0_DIV_2    (5 << 8)
>>>   #define AUDIO_M_CODE_MULT_DIV_SEL_DP_ENC0_P0_DIV_4    (6 << 8)
>>>   #define AUDIO_M_CODE_MULT_DIV_SEL_DP_ENC0_P0_DIV_8    (7 << 8)
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Alexandre Mergnat <amergnat@baylibre.com>
>>
> 
> 

-- 
Regards,
Alexandre