On 21/04/2023 02:05, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
On 21.04.2023 00:41, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 21/04/2023 01:31, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
Add SM6350 support to the DPU1 driver to enable display output.
Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
[...]
+
+static const struct dpu_sspp_cfg sm6350_sspp[] = {
+ SSPP_BLK("sspp_0", SSPP_VIG0, 0x4000, 0x1f8, VIG_SC7180_MASK,
+ sc7180_vig_sblk_0, 0, SSPP_TYPE_VIG, DPU_CLK_CTRL_VIG0),
+ SSPP_BLK("sspp_8", SSPP_DMA0, 0x24000, 0x1f8, DMA_SDM845_MASK,
+ sdm845_dma_sblk_0, 1, SSPP_TYPE_DMA, DPU_CLK_CTRL_DMA0),
+ SSPP_BLK("sspp_9", SSPP_DMA1, 0x26000, 0x1f8, DMA_CURSOR_SDM845_MASK,
+ sdm845_dma_sblk_1, 5, SSPP_TYPE_DMA, DPU_CLK_CTRL_CURSOR0),
DPU_CLK_CTRL_DMA0
This is DPU_CLK_CTRL_DMA1, I made a typo
+ SSPP_BLK("sspp_10", SSPP_DMA2, 0x28000, 0x1f8, DMA_CURSOR_SDM845_MASK,
+ sdm845_dma_sblk_2, 9, SSPP_TYPE_DMA, DPU_CLK_CTRL_CURSOR1),
DPU_CLK_CTRL_DMA2
_DMA1?
And this is DMA2, I was correct.
+};
+
+static const struct dpu_qos_lut_entry sm6350_qos_linear_macrotile[] = {
+ {.fl = 0, .lut = 0x0011223344556677 },
+ {.fl = 0, .lut = 0x0011223445566777 },
Do we need two equal entries here?
Hmm.. looks like the SDE driver dropped the fill level
logic in 4.19 times and that might have thrown me off
when porting this Since the [0] entry has what looks
like a lower LUT value, should I give it .fl=1?
Also please push the qos to the dpu_hw_catalog.c, I want to take another look at these structures and it is easier if all of them are beneath one's eyes.
Will do.
+};
+
+static const struct dpu_perf_cfg sm6350_perf_data = {
+ .max_bw_low = 4200000,
+ .max_bw_high = 5100000,
+ .min_core_ib = 2500000,
+ .min_llcc_ib = 0,
+ .min_dram_ib = 1600000,
+ .min_prefill_lines = 35,
+ /* TODO: confirm danger_lut_tbl */
+ .danger_lut_tbl = {0xffff, 0xffff, 0x0, 0x0, 0xffff},
[...]
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h
@@ -320,6 +320,8 @@ enum dpu_qos_lut_usage {
DPU_QOS_LUT_USAGE_LINEAR,
DPU_QOS_LUT_USAGE_MACROTILE,
DPU_QOS_LUT_USAGE_NRT,
+ DPU_QOS_LUT_USAGE_CWB,
+ DPU_QOS_LUT_USAGE_MACROTILE_QSEED,
This should probably be removed. It would be nice to clean these things up, but not as a part of sm6350.
Well, I won't be able to fill in the danger LUT table otherwise!
Konrad
DPU_QOS_LUT_USAGE_MAX,
};
@@ -880,6 +882,7 @@ extern const struct dpu_mdss_cfg dpu_sc8180x_cfg;
extern const struct dpu_mdss_cfg dpu_sm8250_cfg;
extern const struct dpu_mdss_cfg dpu_sc7180_cfg;
extern const struct dpu_mdss_cfg dpu_sm6115_cfg;
+extern const struct dpu_mdss_cfg dpu_sm6350_cfg;
extern const struct dpu_mdss_cfg dpu_qcm2290_cfg;
extern const struct dpu_mdss_cfg dpu_sm8350_cfg;
extern const struct dpu_mdss_cfg dpu_sc7280_cfg;
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
index 0e7a68714e9e..46be7ad8d615 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c
@@ -1286,6 +1286,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id dpu_dt_match[] = {
{ .compatible = "qcom,sc8180x-dpu", .data = &dpu_sc8180x_cfg, },
{ .compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-dpu", .data = &dpu_sc8280xp_cfg, },
{ .compatible = "qcom,sm6115-dpu", .data = &dpu_sm6115_cfg, },
+ { .compatible = "qcom,sm6350-dpu", .data = &dpu_sm6350_cfg, },
{ .compatible = "qcom,sm8150-dpu", .data = &dpu_sm8150_cfg, },
{ .compatible = "qcom,sm8250-dpu", .data = &dpu_sm8250_cfg, },
{ .compatible = "qcom,sm8350-dpu", .data = &dpu_sm8350_cfg, },
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
