On 05/02/2023 02:36, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 2/4/2023 4:29 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 at 01:20, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 2/4/2023 1:08 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 04/02/2023 20:35, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 2/4/2023 2:43 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 04/02/2023 07:10, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 2/3/2023 8:10 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
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?
Thats because with smartDMA if the programming of stages goes wrong
we could potentially just see a blank screen. Its not about other
changes, this change in particular controls enabling a feature.
But thats just my thought. I am not going to request to ensure this
or block this for this.
You can still have my
Reviewed-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
But think of the validations that have to be done before we merge
it.
The usual way: verify as much as feasible and let anybody else
complain during the development cycle.
Well, our perspective is to enable the feature on devices on which you
are able to test and not enable then wait for others to complain.
This would not be really practical. There are plenty of people who can
test things on obscure platforms, but unfortunately far less amount of
people who tightly follow the development and can track which new
feature applies to a particular platform. I hope to be able to fix that
slightly with the hw catalog rework. However enabling features on other
platforms definitely requires more knowledge than simply testing the
kernel.
I did not say test all devices. My point was to enable smartDMA on
devices which we are able to test.
There are other examples of this, like inline rotation, writeback etc.
which are at the moment enabled only on devices which QC or others
have tested on.
But at the time it was added, inline rotation 2.0 could only be
supported on sc7280. Probably we should expand it not to sc8280xp and
sm8[345]50.
For WB I don't remember which platforms were supported at the moment it
was added. But it's also worth expanding support to new platforms.
And, as we speak about testing, is there an easy way to setup the plane
with UBWC format modifier? Also, did the WB support patches land into
libdrm?
I will check the compositor code and update you on the UWBC format
modifier as I am not too familiar with it.
Ideally it would be nice to support ubwc planes in some simple tool,
e.g. modetest.
libdrm always supported virtual encoder
https://github.com/grate-driver/libdrm/blob/master/include/drm/drm_mode.h#L352
What other support patches are needed? Right now we only use IGT to
validate writeback.
I remember there was a patchset to make modeset to support using
writeback. What was its fate?
Once our intern finished his internship, noone could take up the pending
review comments after that so its yet to be merged.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/dri-devel/list/?series=667290&archive=both
Once more item to the to-do list.
Oh. Quite a pity :-(
I hope somebody can pick it up on either of our sides.
So when i said my suggestion was not practical, yes because if you
want to go ahead with this change in the current form, you would have
to validate all the chipsets as you are enabling smartDMA on all of
them.
If you enable smartDMA only on the chipsets you OR others can validate
and give Tested-by for like I was planning to do for sc7280, then I am
not sure why it doesnt sound logical.
But like I said, thats my perspective. I will let you decide as you
would know how confident you are with this getting enabled for all
chipsets upstream.
I'd say, that once tested on some of the platforms and granted that
even
smalled (qcm2290, sm6115) platforms support smartdma, it will be
safe to
enable smart DMA globablly for every SoC >= sdm845. If I remember
correctly, msm8998 (and sdm660/630) support smartdma/rect only on DMA
planes. Is it correct?
Yes thats right msm8998 supports smartdma only on DMA sspps.
Good
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
