[PATCH v12 12/13] dt-bindings: display: vop2: Add rk3576 support

[Andy Yan]

Hi

At 2025-01-22 16:04:59, "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzk at kernel.org> wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 06:34:57PM +0800, Andy Yan wrote:
>> From: Andy Yan <andy.yan at rock-chips.com>
>> 
>> Add vop found on rk3576, the main difference between rk3576 and the
>> previous vop is that each VP has its own interrupt line.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Andy Yan <andy.yan at rock-chips.com>
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> Changes in v12:
>> - Split from patch 10/13
>
>Order your patches finally. It's v12 and you still send binding after
>the user. Read carefully submitting bindings/patches.
>
>> 
>> Changes in v11:
>> - Remove redundant min/maxItems constraint
>> 
>> Changes in v10:
>> - Move interrupt-names back to top level
>> - Add constraint of interrupts for all platform
>> - Add constraint for all grf phandles
>> - Reorder some properties
>> 
>> Changes in v9:
>> - Drop 'vop-' prefix of interrupt-names.
>> - Add blank line between DT properties
>> - Remove list interrupt-names in top level
>> 
>> Changes in v8:
>> - Fix dt_binding_check errors
>> - ordered by soc name
>> - Link to the previous version:
>>   https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rockchip/6pn3qjxotdtpzucpul24yro7ppddezwuizneovqvmgdwyv2j7p@ztg4mqyiqmjf/T/#u
>> 
>> Changes in v4:
>> - describe constraint SOC by SOC, as interrupts of rk3576 is very
>>   different from others
>> - Drop Krzysztof's Reviewed-by, as this version changed a lot.
>> 
>> Changes in v3:
>> - ordered by soc name
>> - Add description for newly added interrupt
>> 
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Add dt bindings
>> 
>>  .../display/rockchip/rockchip-vop2.yaml       | 55 ++++++++++++++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/rockchip/rockchip-vop2.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/rockchip/rockchip-vop2.yaml
>> index 157a37ed84da..a2a6369c7b6f 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/rockchip/rockchip-vop2.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/rockchip/rockchip-vop2.yaml
>> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ properties:
>>      enum:
>>        - rockchip,rk3566-vop
>>        - rockchip,rk3568-vop
>> +      - rockchip,rk3576-vop
>>        - rockchip,rk3588-vop
>>  
>>    reg:
>> @@ -38,10 +39,21 @@ properties:
>>        - const: gamma-lut
>>  
>>    interrupts:
>> -    maxItems: 1
>> +    minItems: 1
>> +    maxItems: 4
>>      description:
>> -      The VOP interrupt is shared by several interrupt sources, such as
>> -      frame start (VSYNC), line flag and other status interrupts.
>> +      For VOP version under rk3576, the interrupt is shared by several interrupt
>> +      sources, such as frame start (VSYNC), line flag and other interrupt status.
>> +      For VOP version from rk3576 there is a system interrupt for bus error, and
>> +      every video port has it's independent interrupts for vsync and other video
>> +      port related error interrupts.
>> +
>> +  interrupt-names:
>> +    items:
>> +      - const: sys
>> +      - const: vp0
>> +      - const: vp1
>> +      - const: vp2
>>  
>>    # See compatible-specific constraints below.
>>    clocks:
>> @@ -135,6 +147,8 @@ allOf:
>>          interrupts:
>>            maxItems: 1
>
>So this change moves to this patch.
>
>>  
>> +        interrupt-names: false
>> +
>>          ports:
>>            required:
>>              - port at 0
>> @@ -148,6 +162,39 @@ allOf:
>>        required:
>>          - rockchip,grf
>>  
>> +  - if:
>> +      properties:
>> +        compatible:
>> +          contains:
>> +            enum:
>> +              - rockchip,rk3576-vop
>> +    then:
>> +      properties:
>> +        clocks:
>> +          minItems: 5
>
>No. You did not implement my comment at all.
>
>So again:
>"Why minItems? Nothing in this patch makes sense for me. Neither changing
>existing binding nor new binding for rk3576."

Do you mean because I already defined minItems of clocks is 5 on the top, so 
there is no need to redefine the same minItems here ?

>
>To address such comment, come with reasonable answer to "why". Not just
>send the same. It's a waste of my time to keep reviewing the same.

Before sending this patch, I asked you what the next step should be, but you didn't respond.
I might indeed have failed to grasp your main point, I'm indeed not  writing dt-schema. 
Hope you can explain some of the specific issues in more detail to avoid wasting the time of both
of us.



>
>Best regards,
>Krzysztof
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Linux-rockchip mailing list
>Linux-rockchip at lists.infradead.org
>http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip