On 6/6/2023 3:50 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 07/06/2023 01:47, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 6/6/2023 2:52 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 07/06/2023 00:47, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 6/6/2023 2:29 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 07/06/2023 00:14, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 5/24/2023 6:47 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 02:16, Abhinav Kumar
<quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 3/20/2023 6:18 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
As we are going to add virtual planes, add the list of
supported formats
to the hw catalog entry. It will be used to setup universal
planes, with
later selecting a pipe depending on whether the YUV format is
used for
the framebuffer.
If your usage of format_list is going to be internal to
dpu_plane.c, I
can think of another idea for this change.
This essentially translates to if (num_vig >= 1)
If we can just have a small helper to detect that from the
catalog can
we use that instead of adding formats to the dpu caps?
I'd prefer to be explicit here. The list of supported formats might
vary between generations, might it not? Also we don't have a case of
the devices not having VIG planes. Even the qcm2290 (which doesn't
have CSC) lists YUV as supported.
the list of formats is tied to the sspps the dpu generation has
and the capabilities of those sspps.
qcm2290 is really an interesting case. It has one vig sspp but no
csc block for that vig sspp, hence it cannot support non-RGB formats.
I have confirmed that downstream is incorrect to populate yuv
formats for qcm2290.
I still think that having atleast one vig sspp with csc sub-blk is
the right condition to check if we want to decide if the dpu for
that chipset supports yuv formats. Extra csc-blk check to handle
qcm2290.
Having a small helper in dpu_plane.c is good enough for that
because with virtual planes, you only need to know "if such a
plane exists and not which plane" and a full catalog change isnt
needed IMO
This goes down to the question: is the list of YUV and non-YUV
formats static or not? Do all DPU devices support the same set of
YUV and non-YUV formats? If it is static, we might as well drop
dpu_sspp_sub_blks::format_list.
I would say yes based on the below reference:
https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/platform/vendor/opensource/display-drivers/-/blob/clo/main/msm/sde/sde_hw_catalog.c#L3858
We always add the same set of YUV formats for all Vig SSPPs
irrespective of the chipsets.
Well, as your example pointed out, few lines below it starts adding
formats to the list, so the format list is not static and depends on
the generation.
No, the DPU revision checks are there to add P010 UBWC formats on top
of the Vig formats.
At the moment, the latest downstream code (code which is not on CLO
hence I cannot share) has dropped all that and just checks if P010
UBWC is supported for the Vig SSPP and adds all those.
So its still tied to the feature bit whether P010 UBWC is supported in
the Vig SSPP and not at the chipset level.
So, what is the difference? This means that depending on some conditions
either we can support P010 UBWC or we can not. So the list of all
suppored formats is not static.
The difference is SSPP level vs chipset level. This patch was made with
chipset level in mind and had to expand the format list for each chipset.
What I am suggesting is its a SSPP level decision. Please note its not
just P010 UBWC but P010 UBWC FOR Vig SSPP.
So expanding each chipset's format list is not needed when the decision
can be made just on the basis of the SSPP's feature flag OR the presence
of the csc blk.
Note to myself: consider
dpu_mdss_cfg::{dma_formats,cursor_formats,vig_formats}. Either
migrate dpu_sspp_sub_blks::format_list users to these fields or
drop them.
Yes, I agree. There is no need to have format list in the sub_blk as
for one type of SSPP, it supports the same format across DPU
generations.
Note: I think at some point we should have a closer look at the list
of supported formats and crosscheck that we do not have either
unsupported formats being listed, or missing formats which are not
listed as supported.
