Hi,
On 06/03/2025 15:29, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
Enable display for AM62L DSS [1] which supports only a single display
pipeline using a single overlay manager, single video port and a single
video lite pipeline which does not support scaling.
The output of video port is routed to SoC boundary via DPI interface and
the DPI signals from the video port are also routed to DSI Tx controller
present within the SoC.
[1]: Section 11.7 (Display Subsystem and Peripherals)
Link : https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/sprujb4
Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@xxxxxx>
---
V3:
- Rebase on top of
0002-drm-tidss-Update-infra-to-support-DSS7-cut-down-vers.patch
- Use the generic "tidss_am65x_common_regs" as common reg space
instead of creating a new one.
V2:
- Add separate common reg space for AM62L
- Add separate irq enable/disable/read/clear helpers for AM62L
- Use separate helper function for setting overlay attributes
- Drop Reviewed-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
due to additional changes made in V2.
drivers/gpu/drm/tidss/tidss_dispc.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
drivers/gpu/drm/tidss/tidss_dispc.h | 2 ++
drivers/gpu/drm/tidss/tidss_drv.c | 1 +
3 files changed, 49 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tidss/tidss_dispc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tidss/tidss_dispc.c
index 9b46403dbb0c..0ca0c2106715 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tidss/tidss_dispc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tidss/tidss_dispc.c
@@ -440,6 +440,47 @@ const struct dispc_features dispc_am62a7_feats = {
.vid_order = {1, 0},
};
+const struct dispc_features dispc_am62l_feats = {
+ .max_pclk_khz = {
+ [DISPC_VP_DPI] = 165000,
+ },
+
+ .subrev = DISPC_AM62L,
+
+ .common = "common",
+ .common_regs = tidss_am65x_common_regs,
+
+ .num_vps = 1,
+ .vp_name = { "vp1" },
+ .ovr_name = { "ovr1" },
+ .vpclk_name = { "vp1" },
+ .vp_bus_type = { DISPC_VP_DPI },
+
+ .vp_feat = { .color = {
+ .has_ctm = true,
+ .gamma_size = 256,
+ .gamma_type = TIDSS_GAMMA_8BIT,
+ },
+ },
+
+ .num_planes = 2,
+
+ .vid_info = {
+ {
+ .vid_name = "vid",
+ .vid_lite = false,
+ .is_present = false,
+ },
+ {
+ .vid_name = "vidl1",
+ .vid_lite = true,
+ .is_present = true,
+ }
+ },
I don't think this is a good idea. Now you have tidss->num_planes 1, and
feat->num_planes 2. It get's very confusing.
The naming is also mixed up. You have "vid_info" field, which has
"plane_info" entries...
My suggestion is to have entries in vid_info only for the instantiated
vids, like this:
struct vid_info {
u32 hw_id;
const char *name; /* Should match dt reg names */
bool is_lite;
};
While at it, let's change the num_planes name in the feat struct too, to
num_vids. This will also highlight all the places in the code that use
the vid structs.
For AM62L it would be:
.num_vids = 1,
{
.hw_id = 1,
.name = "vidl1",
.is_lite = true,
}
Tomi
