On 8.02.2025 11:09 PM, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> On 2025-02-03 21:14:26, Danila Tikhonov wrote:
>> From: Eugene Lepshy <fekz115@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> DRM DSC helper has parameters for various bpc values other than 8:
>
> Weird zero-width \u200b spaces here between "values" and "other", please delete
> those.
>
>> (8/10/12/14/16).
>>
>> Remove this guard.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eugene Lepshy <fekz115@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Danila Tikhonov <danila@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Should this patch elaborate that those "DRM DSC helper" don't have any
> additional guarding for the values you mention either, i.e. passing 9 or 11 or
>> 16 don't seem to be checked anywhere else either?
>
> And your title might have space to spell out "Bits Per Component" entirely.
>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c | 7 +------
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c
>> index 007311c21fda..d182af7bbb81 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c
>> @@ -1767,11 +1767,6 @@ static int dsi_populate_dsc_params(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host, struct drm_dsc
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> - if (dsc->bits_per_component != 8) {
>> - DRM_DEV_ERROR(&msm_host->pdev->dev, "DSI does not support bits_per_component != 8 yet\n");
>> - return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> - }
>> -
>> dsc->simple_422 = 0;
>> dsc->convert_rgb = 1;
>> dsc->vbr_enable = 0;
>
> This seems supicous on the dpu1 side, in the original DSC 1.1 (not 1.2) block in
> dpu_hw_dsc_config(), which has:
>
> data |= (dsc->line_buf_depth << 3);
> data |= (dsc->simple_422 << 2);
> data |= (dsc->convert_rgb << 1);
> data |= dsc->bits_per_component;
>
> The original value of `8` would overlap with the lowest bit of line_buf_depth
> (4th bit in `data`). Now, the 2nd bit which will take the value from
> convert_rgb, which is already set to 1 above, will overlap with the 2nd bit in
> your new bpc value of 10.
>
> Can you double-check that this code in DPU1 is actually valid? I assume you
> have tested this panel at least and it is working (worthy mention in the cover
> letter?), this just seems like yet another mistake in the original bindings
> (though the register always had a matching value with downstream on 8 BPC panels
> for me).
It seems like the lowest bit should be set iff the input is 10bpc, the
current situation where our '8' bleeds into the following (correctly named
fields) is bad.
Konrad
