On 08/04/2023 02:43, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 4/4/2023 6:06 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:Enable DSPP and DSC hardware blocks on sc8180x platform. Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> --- .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_1_sc8180x.h | 26 +++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_1_sc8180x.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_1_sc8180x.hindex fb8cdcd6bfe9..93d303cc0dc5 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_1_sc8180x.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_1_sc8180x.h @@ -102,9 +102,9 @@ static const struct dpu_sspp_cfg sc8180x_sspp[] = { static const struct dpu_lm_cfg sc8180x_lm[] = { LM_BLK("lm_0", LM_0, 0x44000, MIXER_SDM845_MASK, - &sdm845_lm_sblk, PINGPONG_0, LM_1, 0), + &sdm845_lm_sblk, PINGPONG_0, LM_1, DSPP_0), LM_BLK("lm_1", LM_1, 0x45000, MIXER_SDM845_MASK, - &sdm845_lm_sblk, PINGPONG_1, LM_0, 0), + &sdm845_lm_sblk, PINGPONG_1, LM_0, DSPP_1), LM_BLK("lm_2", LM_2, 0x46000, MIXER_SDM845_MASK, &sdm845_lm_sblk, PINGPONG_2, LM_3, 0), LM_BLK("lm_3", LM_3, 0x47000, MIXER_SDM845_MASK, @@ -115,6 +115,17 @@ static const struct dpu_lm_cfg sc8180x_lm[] = { &sdm845_lm_sblk, PINGPONG_5, LM_4, 0), }; +static const struct dpu_dspp_cfg sc8180x_dspp[] = { + DSPP_BLK("dspp_0", DSPP_0, 0x54000, DSPP_SC7180_MASK, + &sm8150_dspp_sblk), + DSPP_BLK("dspp_1", DSPP_1, 0x56000, DSPP_SC7180_MASK, + &sm8150_dspp_sblk), + DSPP_BLK("dspp_2", DSPP_2, 0x58000, DSPP_SC7180_MASK, + &sm8150_dspp_sblk), + DSPP_BLK("dspp_3", DSPP_3, 0x5a000, DSPP_SC7180_MASK, + &sm8150_dspp_sblk), +};
I was looking at DSPP_SC7180_MASK. This has only PCC. Today the only DSPP feature we are supporting seems to be PCC as the "gc" base is not used. In that aspect this is fine. Perhaps getting rid of DSPP_SC7180_MASK and just using the feature mask directly is more appropriate here. So BIT(DPU_DSPP_PCC). I dont know if you want to handle that in a separate series to replace DSPP_SC7180_MASK with BIT(DPU_DSPP_PCC)
I have not yet had time to look on the DSPP details and/or different features per SoC. So, I followed current approach. If anybody has time to take a look and cleanup DSPP handling, I'd be grateful. If not, it will wait for somebody to volunteer (or for you or me to have time for that).
So do we also need to correct the msm8998 DSPP mask because gc is really not programmed today from what I can see. So that mask really is not doing anything.+ static const struct dpu_pingpong_cfg sc8180x_pp[] = {PP_BLK_TE("pingpong_0", PINGPONG_0, 0x70000, MERGE_3D_0, sdm845_pp_sblk_te,DPU_IRQ_IDX(MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 8),@@ -142,6 +153,13 @@ static const struct dpu_merge_3d_cfg sc8180x_merge_3d[] = {MERGE_3D_BLK("merge_3d_2", MERGE_3D_2, 0x83200), }; +static const struct dpu_dsc_cfg sc8180x_dsc[] = { + DSC_BLK("dsc_0", DSC_0, 0x80000, BIT(DPU_DSC_OUTPUT_CTRL)), + DSC_BLK("dsc_1", DSC_1, 0x80400, BIT(DPU_DSC_OUTPUT_CTRL)), + DSC_BLK("dsc_2", DSC_2, 0x80800, BIT(DPU_DSC_OUTPUT_CTRL)), + DSC_BLK("dsc_3", DSC_3, 0x80c00, BIT(DPU_DSC_OUTPUT_CTRL)), +};There is also DSC_4 and DSC_5 at 0x81000 and 0x81400 resp.
Hmm. I was using sdmshrike-sde.dtsi as a reference. I'll add two more DSC units.
Rest LGTM.
Thanks
+ static const struct dpu_intf_cfg sc8180x_intf[] = {INTF_BLK("intf_0", INTF_0, 0x6a000, 0x280, INTF_DP, MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_0, 24, INTF_SC7180_MASK, MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 24, 25), INTF_BLK("intf_1", INTF_1, 0x6a800, 0x2bc, INTF_DSI, 0, 24, INTF_SC7180_MASK, MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 26, 27),@@ -190,6 +208,10 @@ static const struct dpu_mdss_cfg sc8180x_dpu_cfg = { .sspp = sc8180x_sspp, .mixer_count = ARRAY_SIZE(sc8180x_lm), .mixer = sc8180x_lm, + .dspp_count = ARRAY_SIZE(sc8180x_dspp), + .dspp = sc8180x_dspp, + .dsc_count = ARRAY_SIZE(sc8180x_dsc), + .dsc = sc8180x_dsc, .pingpong_count = ARRAY_SIZE(sc8180x_pp), .pingpong = sc8180x_pp, .merge_3d_count = ARRAY_SIZE(sc8180x_merge_3d),
-- With best wishes Dmitry
