On 2023-04-25 14:37:21, Abhinav Kumar wrote: > > > On 4/25/2023 1:43 PM, Marijn Suijten wrote: > > On 2023-04-25 09:47:30, Abhinav Kumar wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 4/25/2023 9:33 AM, Marijn Suijten wrote: > >>> On 2023-04-25 09:18:58, Abhinav Kumar wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 4/24/2023 11:54 PM, Marijn Suijten wrote: > >>>>> On 2023-04-24 16:09:45, Abhinav Kumar wrote: > >>>>> <snip> > >>>>>>>> dither block should be present on many other chipsets too but looks like > >>>>>>>> on sm8550 was enabling it. Not sure how it was validated there. But we > >>>>>>>> are enabling dither, even other chipsets have this block. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Correct, they all seem to have it starting at sdm845. My patch message > >>>>>>> seems to lack the word "exclusively" as the PP on sm8550 appears to > >>>>>>> exclusively contain a DITHER subblock (unless other blocks are available > >>>>>>> that simply aren't supported within this driver yet) and no other > >>>>>>> registers. Hence this aptly named macro exist to emit just the feature > >>>>>>> bitflag for that and a .len of zero. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think after the TE blocks were moved to INTF, dither is the only > >>>>>> sub-block for all Ping-Pongs not just in sm8550. > >>>>> > >>>>> So you are asking / leaving context to make all >= 5.0.0 pingpong blocks > >>>>> use this macro with only a single DITHER sblk in PP? > >>>>> > >>>>> As far as I recall SM8550 is the first SoC to use zero registers in PP, > >>>>> which is specifically what this macro takes care of too. Then, there > >>>>> are only a few SoCs downstream still (erroneously?) referencing TE2 as > >>>>> the only other sub-blk, those SoCs still use sdm845_pp_sblk_te. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> So, what I didnt follow is why should sm8450 use PP_BLK_TE Vs sm8550 > >>>> should use PP_BLK_DIPHER? > >>>> > >>>> Atleast for those two, both should be using PP_BLK_DIPHER. > >>>> > >>>> Thats what I was trying to note here. > >>>> > >>>> This isnt even right as there is no PP_BLK_TE in sm8450. > >>> > >>> SM8450 doesn't use PP_BLK_TE (TE2) anymore since the second patch in > >>> this series. If you think it should use the DITHER (not DIPHER!) macro > >>> instead of the regular PP_BLK with a size of 0xd4, we can do that in > >>> another patch as that's not strictly related to this series. > >>> > >> > >> Yes, thanks for pointing the TE2 was removed in the prev patch of this > >> series for sm8450. I was just focusing too much on this patch. > >> > >> And Yes, I think we should use the DIPHER ..... oh sorry .... DITHER ;) > >> > >> Yes, it can go as a different series, like I already wrote many times in > >> this. > > > > Thanks, that'd be great. I wasn't sure at this point what you wanted to > > be changed here, after commenting on a typo fix rather than i.e. patch 2 > > that deals with the TE2 sub-block of PP :) > > > > The reason I commented on this patch is because all the discussion so > far was surrounding the PP_BLK_DITHER macro which was being touched in > this patch. > > So even now, we found out about sm8450 and sm8550 because of the > question that why sm8550 alone should use PP_BLK_DITHER and not sm8450. > > This patch led to all the discussion about PP_BLK_DITHER. > > Even though it was just a typo fix patch, it uncovered deeper issues in > catalog about why PP_BLK_DITHER wasnt used more often. Indeed: the initial question was for the dither _block_ which is enabled on every other platform, just through the original macros which do more than exclusively enabling the dither block. > >> But atleast now, someone will remember to do it. I'll see whether I can include these fixes before sending v3 (got all the other changes in and am all-ready to send it): is there any other SoC you're seeing this issue on? - Marijn > >>> Note that that's the only difference between these macros. The size > >>> becomes 0 but the .features mask is the same (SM8450 uses > >>> PINGPONG_SM8150_MASK). > >>> > >>> These patches are anyway already distracting from my series, but were > >>> easier to do in one go as I was touching the PP and INTF catalog blocks > >>> regardless. > >>> > >>> While at it, perhaps we should check if the version and offset for the > >>> DITHER block are correct? SM8450 uses SDM845 sblk definitions. > >>> > >> > >> Yes I already checked. the version and offset of dither are same between > >> sm8450 and sm8550. > > > > Thanks for checking, so then sm8450 is wrong on multiple occasions. > > Let's check all other SoCs that use sdm845_pp_sblk whether they should > > have used sc7280_pp_sblk instead. > > > > - Marijn
