Current, the DT bindings for Mediatek UFOe (Unified Frame Optimization
engine) is missing the mediatek,gce-client-reg property. Add it and
update the example as well.
Signed-off-by: Ariel D'Alessandro <ariel.dalessandro@collabora.com>
---
.../bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml | 11 +++++++++++
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml
index 61a5e22effbf2..ecb4c0359fec3 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml
@@ -64,6 +64,14 @@ properties:
- port@0
- port@1
+ mediatek,gce-client-reg:
+ description: The register of client driver can be configured by gce with
+ 4 arguments defined in this property, such as phandle of gce, subsys id,
+ register offset and size. Each GCE subsys id is mapping to a client
+ defined in the header include/dt-bindings/gce/<chip>-gce.h.
+ $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array
+ maxItems: 1
+
required:
- compatible
- reg
@@ -77,7 +85,9 @@ examples:
- |
#include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
#include <dt-bindings/clock/mt8173-clk.h>
+ #include <dt-bindings/gce/mt8173-gce.h>
#include <dt-bindings/power/mt8173-power.h>
+
soc {
#address-cells = <2>;
#size-cells = <2>;
@@ -88,5 +98,6 @@ examples:
interrupts = <GIC_SPI 191 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
power-domains = <&scpsys MT8173_POWER_DOMAIN_MM>;
clocks = <&mmsys CLK_MM_DISP_UFOE>;
+ mediatek,gce-client-reg = <&gce SUBSYS_1401XXXX 0xa000 0x1000>;
};
};
--
2.50.1On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 02:12:55PM -0300, Ariel D'Alessandro wrote: > Current, the DT bindings for Mediatek UFOe (Unified Frame Optimization > engine) is missing the mediatek,gce-client-reg property. Add it and Why is it missing? If the binding is complete, it cannot be missing... > update the example as well. > > Signed-off-by: Ariel D'Alessandro <ariel.dalessandro@collabora.com> > --- > .../bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml | 11 +++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml > index 61a5e22effbf2..ecb4c0359fec3 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml > @@ -64,6 +64,14 @@ properties: > - port@0 > - port@1 > > + mediatek,gce-client-reg: > + description: The register of client driver can be configured by gce with > + 4 arguments defined in this property, such as phandle of gce, subsys id, > + register offset and size. Each GCE subsys id is mapping to a client Don't explain what DT syntax is. We all know, so that's completely redundant description. Explain the purpose. Explain Arguments with sechema - items. Best regards, Krzysztof
Krzysztof, On 8/21/25 3:50 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 02:12:55PM -0300, Ariel D'Alessandro wrote: >> Current, the DT bindings for Mediatek UFOe (Unified Frame Optimization >> engine) is missing the mediatek,gce-client-reg property. Add it and > > Why is it missing? If the binding is complete, it cannot be missing... Due to the following error: $ make -j$(nproc) CHECK_DTBS=y mediatek/mt8173-elm.dtb SCHEMA Documentation/devicetree/bindings/processed-schema.json DTC [C] arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8173-elm.dtb [...] arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8173-elm.dtb: ufoe@1401a000 (mediatek,mt8173-disp-ufoe): 'mediatek,gce-client-reg' does not match any of the regexes: '^pinctrl-[0-9]+$' from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml# > >> update the example as well. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ariel D'Alessandro <ariel.dalessandro@collabora.com> >> --- >> .../bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml | 11 +++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml >> index 61a5e22effbf2..ecb4c0359fec3 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml >> @@ -64,6 +64,14 @@ properties: >> - port@0 >> - port@1 >> >> + mediatek,gce-client-reg: >> + description: The register of client driver can be configured by gce with >> + 4 arguments defined in this property, such as phandle of gce, subsys id, >> + register offset and size. Each GCE subsys id is mapping to a client > > Don't explain what DT syntax is. We all know, so that's completely > redundant description. Explain the purpose. Explain Arguments with sechema - items. Although I agree with your suggestions, this is exactly how the rest of the Mediatek DT bindings describe this node. This patch is based on the other +20 files, which describe the node in the same way. Regards, -- Ariel D'Alessandro Software Engineer Collabora Ltd. Platinum Building, St John's Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS, UK Registered in England & Wales, no. 5513718
On 10/09/2025 16:04, Ariel D'Alessandro wrote: > Krzysztof, > > On 8/21/25 3:50 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 02:12:55PM -0300, Ariel D'Alessandro wrote: >>> Current, the DT bindings for Mediatek UFOe (Unified Frame Optimization >>> engine) is missing the mediatek,gce-client-reg property. Add it and >> >> Why is it missing? If the binding is complete, it cannot be missing... > > Due to the following error: > > $ make -j$(nproc) CHECK_DTBS=y mediatek/mt8173-elm.dtb > SCHEMA Documentation/devicetree/bindings/processed-schema.json > DTC [C] arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8173-elm.dtb > [...] > arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8173-elm.dtb: ufoe@1401a000 > (mediatek,mt8173-disp-ufoe): 'mediatek,gce-client-reg' does not match > any of the regexes: '^pinctrl-[0-9]+$' > from schema $id: > http://devicetree.org/schemas/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml# So there are users of it? Then please explain that. > >> >>> update the example as well. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ariel D'Alessandro <ariel.dalessandro@collabora.com> >>> --- >>> .../bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml | 11 +++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml >>> index 61a5e22effbf2..ecb4c0359fec3 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml >>> @@ -64,6 +64,14 @@ properties: >>> - port@0 >>> - port@1 >>> >>> + mediatek,gce-client-reg: >>> + description: The register of client driver can be configured by gce with >>> + 4 arguments defined in this property, such as phandle of gce, subsys id, >>> + register offset and size. Each GCE subsys id is mapping to a client >> >> Don't explain what DT syntax is. We all know, so that's completely >> redundant description. Explain the purpose. Explain Arguments with sechema - items. > > Although I agree with your suggestions, this is exactly how the rest of > the Mediatek DT bindings describe this node. This patch is based on the > other +20 files, which describe the node in the same way. Last time I tried to fix something for Mediatek display I got condescending and useless review from Collabora, so I won't be bothering with fixing these bindings to make your job easier. I don't care, you can thank someone inside. Therefore other poor bindings are not a valid excuse for this patch not being correct. Best regards, Krzysztof
Krzysztof, On 9/10/25 11:21 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 10/09/2025 16:04, Ariel D'Alessandro wrote: >> Krzysztof, >> >> On 8/21/25 3:50 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 02:12:55PM -0300, Ariel D'Alessandro wrote: >>>> Current, the DT bindings for Mediatek UFOe (Unified Frame Optimization >>>> engine) is missing the mediatek,gce-client-reg property. Add it and >>> >>> Why is it missing? If the binding is complete, it cannot be missing... >> >> Due to the following error: >> >> $ make -j$(nproc) CHECK_DTBS=y mediatek/mt8173-elm.dtb >> SCHEMA Documentation/devicetree/bindings/processed-schema.json >> DTC [C] arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8173-elm.dtb >> [...] >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8173-elm.dtb: ufoe@1401a000 >> (mediatek,mt8173-disp-ufoe): 'mediatek,gce-client-reg' does not match >> any of the regexes: '^pinctrl-[0-9]+$' >> from schema $id: >> http://devicetree.org/schemas/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml# > > So there are users of it? Then please explain that. Ack. Will fix in v2. Thanks. > >> >>> >>>> update the example as well. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ariel D'Alessandro <ariel.dalessandro@collabora.com> >>>> --- >>>> .../bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml | 11 +++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml >>>> index 61a5e22effbf2..ecb4c0359fec3 100644 >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/mediatek/mediatek,ufoe.yaml >>>> @@ -64,6 +64,14 @@ properties: >>>> - port@0 >>>> - port@1 >>>> >>>> + mediatek,gce-client-reg: >>>> + description: The register of client driver can be configured by gce with >>>> + 4 arguments defined in this property, such as phandle of gce, subsys id, >>>> + register offset and size. Each GCE subsys id is mapping to a client >>> >>> Don't explain what DT syntax is. We all know, so that's completely >>> redundant description. Explain the purpose. Explain Arguments with sechema - items. >> >> Although I agree with your suggestions, this is exactly how the rest of >> the Mediatek DT bindings describe this node. This patch is based on the >> other +20 files, which describe the node in the same way. > > > Last time I tried to fix something for Mediatek display I got > condescending and useless review from Collabora, so I won't be bothering > with fixing these bindings to make your job easier. I don't care, you > can thank someone inside. Therefore other poor bindings are not a valid > excuse for this patch not being correct. I see. Will rework this properly in v2. Thanks, -- Ariel D'Alessandro Software Engineer Collabora Ltd. Platinum Building, St John's Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS, UK Registered in England & Wales, no. 5513718
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.