[PATCH 03/12] drm/msm/dpu: use format-related definitions from mdp_common.xml.h

[Abhinav Kumar]

On 4/10/2024 2:12 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 01:18:42PM -0700, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/10/2024 1:16 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 at 23:00, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk at quicinc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/2/2023 1:40 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>> Instead of having DPU-specific defines, switch to the definitions from
>>>>> the mdp_common.xml.h file. This is the preparation for merged of DPU and
>>>>> MDP format tables.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Adding MDP_***__ usages in DPU driver is quite confusing.
>>>>
>>>> Can we align to a common naming scheme such as DISP_***?
>>>
>>> No, it's not something display-generic. It is specific to MDP
>>> platforms. In the end DPU is a continuation of the MDP lineup, isn't
>>> it?
>>>
>>
>> No some aspects of the hw are completely different as you already know
>> between MDP4/MDP5 and DPU. Bringing back MDP usages into DPU does not seem
>> right.
> 
> MDP4 is different, it's true. But there is a lot of common between MDP5
> and DPU. Frakly speaking, I don't see an issue with using the constant
> that was defined for MDP5 for DPU layer. Especially since we are also
> going to use mdp_ functions for format handling.
> 

All the HW naming etc in the doc has migrated to DPU and in fact it only 
makes sense to start using DPU for MDP5 as we plan to move mdp5 targets 
to DPU anyway. Not the other way around.

MDP4 remains different.

How about MSM_DISP then? I dont get why this is MDP platform specific. 
Because the term MDP no longer holds true for DPU.

I am even looking for future chipsets. We cannot live with MDP5 names. 
Have to think of generic names for formats.