On Tue 15 Feb 19:34 CST 2022, Abhinav Kumar wrote: > > > On 2/15/2022 4:20 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 23:21, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 2/15/2022 10:42 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > > On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 20:42, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On 2/15/2022 9:28 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > > > > > On Tue 15 Feb 11:14 CST 2022, Abhinav Kumar wrote: > > > > > > > On 2/14/2022 8:33 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [..] > > > > (thus leading us to cases when someone would forget to add INTF_EDP > > > > next to INTF_DP) > > > > > > > > Also, if we are switching from INTF_DP to INTF_EDP, should we stop > > > > using end-to-end numbering (like MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_2 for INTF_5) and > > > > add a separate numbering scheme for INTF_EDP? > > > > > > > We should change the controller ID to match what it actually is. > > > > > > Now that you pointed this out, this looks even more confusing to me to > > > say that MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_2 is actually a EDP controller because > > > fundamentally and even hardware block wise they are different. > > > > So, do we split msm_priv->dp too? It's indexed using > > MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_n entries. > > Do we want to teach drm/msm/dp code that there are priv->dp[] and > > priv->edp arrays? > > ok so now priv->dp and priv->edp arrays are also in the picture here :) > > Actually all these questions should have probably come when we were figuring > out how best to re-use eDP and DP driver. > > Either way atleast, its good we are documenting all these questions on this > thread so that anyone can refer this to know what all was missed out :) > > priv->dp is of type msm_dp. When re-using DP driver for eDP and since > struct msm_dp is the shared struct between dpu and the msm/dp, I get your > point of re-using MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_* as thats being use to index. > > So MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_* is more of an index into the DP driver and not really > a hardware indexing scheme. > > If we split into two arrays, we need more changes to dpu_encoder too. > > Too instrusive a change at this point, even though probably correct. > I'm sorry, but performing such a split would create a whole bunch of duplication and I don't see the reasons yet. Can you please give me an example of when the DPU _code_ would benefit from being specifically written for EDP vs DP? Things where it doesn't make sense to enable certain features in runtime - but really have different implementation for the two interface types. > But are you seeing more changes required even if we just change INTF_DP to > INTF_eDP for the eDP entries? What are the challenges there? > What are the benefits? Regards, Bjorn
