drm/amd/display: Try RGB before YCbCr 4:4:4 in stream validationgrafted

amdgpu_dm_create_validate_stream_for_sink() walks encoding_order[] and
uses the first encoding that validates. YCbCr 4:4:4 is listed before
RGB, so an HDMI sink that advertises 4:4:4 gets YCbCr 4:4:4 whenever the
"color format" property is left at AUTO, even though RGB fits the same
link.

That contradicts the documented AUTO behaviour for HDMI in enum
drm_connector_color_format (RGB, falling back to YCbCr 4:2:0 only when
the bandwidth is not available or the mode is 4:2:0-only), which the
amdgpu implementation of the property also describes. It also leaves
the "Broadcast RGB" property without effect on such sinks, since the
quantization range it selects only applies to RGB output.

Try RGB first. The mask still holds every encoding the sink supports,
so a mode that cannot carry RGB falls back exactly as before.

For reference, v7.2 picked RGB here unless YCbCr 4:4:4 was forced
through debugfs, while earlier kernels picked YCbCr 4:4:4 for any HDMI
sink that advertised it.

Fixes: 0b0ff65d3ca1 ("drm/amd/display: Refactor stream validation")
Suggested-by: Adolfo Rodrigues <adolfotregosa@gmail.com>
Assisted-by: Claude Code:claude-fable-5-1
Signed-off-by: Adrian Betschart <adrian.betschart@cinemaone.ch>
Reviewed-by: Fangzhi Zuo <jerry.zuo@amd.com>
Tested-by: Adolfo Rodrigues <adolfotregosa@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Daniel Wheeler <daniel.wheeler@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
(cherry picked from commit 7de432bc753133764dc40d37f9388da56de251e7)

1 files changed, 72 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-devicetree.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-devicetree.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..ecc3ed638
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-devicetree.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+======================================
+Devicetree and Open Firmware Subsystem
+======================================
+
+Other Process Documents
+-----------------------
+
+Please see the documents in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ for information
+on how to write proper Devicetree bindings and how to submit patches.
+
+Patch Review and Handling
+-------------------------
+
+Patches handled by Devicetree maintainers are processed differently depending
+on the patch type:
+
+1. Core OF driver code, e.g. drivers/of/:
+   patches are reviewed and applied by DT maintainers.
+
+2. Devicetree bindings:
+   patches are reviewed by DT maintainers, but should be applied by subsystem
+   maintainers except in certain cases.  See also *For kernel maintainers* in
+   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst.
+
+3. DTS and drivers:
+   DT maintainers might provide comments, but review is generally not expected.
+   DTS must pass schema checks (dtbs_check) or at least do not add any
+   new warnings.
+
+Patchwork
+~~~~~~~~~
+
+Devicetree maintainers review patches using Patchwork, so the current status of
+a patch can be checked there. For typical driver submissions, Patchwork
+receives the entire patch set, but only a few patches are usually Devicetree
+bindings that are reviewed by DT maintainers.
+
+Explanation of Patchwork statuses:
+
+ - **New**: Not yet processed by the automation toolset.
+ - **Needs ACK**: Waiting for review by DT maintainers.
+ - **Handled Elsewhere**: Non-DT patch; not being reviewed here.
+ - **RFC**: Patch was likely ignored because it was an incomplete RFC.
+ - **Changes Requested**: Patch was reviewed and DT maintainers expect changes.
+ - **Accepted**: Patch was reviewed and applied by DT maintainers to their tree.
+ - **Not Applicable**: Patch was reviewed and is likely in good shape, with a
+   *Reviewed-by* or *Acked-by* tag provided, but DT maintainers expect someone
+   else to apply it.
+
+Patch Re-review and Pinging
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Due to the high volume of email traffic, Devicetree maintainers do not read
+every email they receive and instead rely on Patchwork during the review
+process. They also often skip patches that have already been reviewed.
+
+As a result, maintainers might miss:
+
+1. Questions about already reviewed patches.
+2. Pings, for example when a patch has been reviewed by DT maintainers but has
+   not been picked up by subsystem maintainers.
+
+Such cases can be addressed by:
+
+1. Pinging DT maintainers on the IRC channel.
+2. Dropping the DT maintainer’s *Acked-by* or *Reviewed-by* tag when sending a new
+   version of the patch set, together with an explanation in the patch
+   changelog describing why the tag was removed and what is expected from DT
+   maintainers.
+