Re: [PATCH v3 18/27] drm/msm/dpu: populate SmartDMA features in hw catalog

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 04/02/2023 04:43, Abhinav Kumar wrote:


On 2/3/2023 6:29 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 04/02/2023 01:35, Abhinav Kumar wrote:


On 2/3/2023 10:21 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
Downstream driver uses dpu->caps->smart_dma_rev to update
sspp->cap->features with the bit corresponding to the supported SmartDMA
version. Upstream driver does not do this, resulting in SSPP subdriver
not enbaling setup_multirect callback. Add corresponding SmartDMA SSPP
feature bits to dpu hw catalog.


While reviewing this patch, I had a first hand experience of how we are reusing SSPP bitmasks for so many chipsets but I think overall you got them right here :)

Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c | 10 +++++++---
  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c
index cf053e8f081e..fc818b0273e7 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c
@@ -21,13 +21,16 @@
      (VIG_MASK | BIT(DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED3))
  #define VIG_SDM845_MASK \
-    (VIG_MASK | BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL) | BIT(DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED3))
+    (VIG_MASK | BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL) | BIT(DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED3) |\
+    BIT(DPU_SSPP_SMART_DMA_V2))
  #define VIG_SC7180_MASK \
-    (VIG_MASK | BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL) | BIT(DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED4))
+    (VIG_MASK | BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL) | BIT(DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED4) |\
+    BIT(DPU_SSPP_SMART_DMA_V2))
  #define VIG_SM8250_MASK \
-    (VIG_MASK | BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL) | BIT(DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED3LITE)) +    (VIG_MASK | BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL) | BIT(DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED3LITE) |\
+    BIT(DPU_SSPP_SMART_DMA_V2))
  #define VIG_QCM2290_MASK (VIG_MASK | BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL))
@@ -42,6 +45,7 @@
  #define DMA_SDM845_MASK \
      (BIT(DPU_SSPP_SRC) | BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS) | BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL) |\
      BIT(DPU_SSPP_TS_PREFILL) | BIT(DPU_SSPP_TS_PREFILL_REC1) |\
+    BIT(DPU_SSPP_SMART_DMA_V2) |\
      BIT(DPU_SSPP_CDP) | BIT(DPU_SSPP_EXCL_RECT))
  #define DMA_CURSOR_SDM845_MASK \

VIG_SDM845_MASK and DMA_SDM845_MASK are used for many other chipsets like 8250, 8450, 8550.

At the moment, for visual validation of this series, I only have sc7180/sc7280. We are leaving the rest for CI.

Was that an intentional approach?

If so, we will need tested-by tags from folks having 8350/8450/8550/sc8280x,qcm2290?

I am only owning the visual validation on sc7280 atm.

I'm not quite sure what is your intent here. Are there any SoCs after 845 that do not have SmartDMA 2.5? Or do you propose to enable SmartDMA only for the chipsets that we can visually test? That sounds strange.


Yes I was thinking to enable smartDMA at the moment on chipsets which we can validate visually that display comes up. But I am not sure if thats entirely practical.

But the intent was I just want to make sure basic display does come up with smartDMA enabled if we are enabling it for all chipsets.

I don't think it is practical or logical. We don't require validating other changes on all possible chipsets, so what is so different with this one?

--
With best wishes
Dmitry




[Index of Archives]     [Linux DRI Users]     [Linux Intel Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux