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

[AngeloGioacchino Del Regno]

Il 20/07/23 14:07, Alexandre Mergnat ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 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 at mediatek.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jitao Shi <jitao.shi at 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?
> 

For just one definition? That's a bit overkill :-)

>>>>   #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 at baylibre.com>
>>>
>>
>>
>