On 2023-06-13 03:09:45, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> For each LM there is at max 1 peer LM which can be driven by the same
> CTL, so there no need to have a mask instead of just an ID of the peer
> LM.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
Nit: I think you can describe the the patch contents in the title:
Replace LM peer mask with index
Instead of the vague (IMHO) "simplify handling".
> ---
> .../gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c | 2 +-
> .../gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h | 4 +--
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_rm.c | 34 +++++++------------
> 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 25 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 0de507d4d7b7..30fb5b1f3966 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c
> @@ -394,7 +394,7 @@ static const struct dpu_sspp_sub_blks qcm2290_dma_sblk_0 = _DMA_SBLK("8", 1);
> .features = _fmask, \
> .sblk = _sblk, \
> .pingpong = _pp, \
> - .lm_pair_mask = (1 << _lmpair), \
> + .lm_pair = _lmpair, \
> .dspp = _dspp \
> }
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h
> index b860784ade72..b07caa4b867e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h
> @@ -554,14 +554,14 @@ struct dpu_sspp_cfg {
> * @features bit mask identifying sub-blocks/features
> * @sblk: LM Sub-blocks information
> * @pingpong: ID of connected PingPong, PINGPONG_NONE if unsupported
> - * @lm_pair_mask: Bitmask of LMs that can be controlled by same CTL
> + * @lm_pair: ID of LM that can be controlled by same CTL
Of *the* LM
By *the* same CTL
But then the rest of these comments have this borked hard-to-read style
as well.
> */
> struct dpu_lm_cfg {
> DPU_HW_BLK_INFO;
> const struct dpu_lm_sub_blks *sblk;
> u32 pingpong;
> u32 dspp;
> - unsigned long lm_pair_mask;
> + unsigned long lm_pair;
> };
>
> /**
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_rm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_rm.c
> index 471842bbb950..e333f4eeafc1 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_rm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_rm.c
> @@ -253,28 +253,19 @@ static bool _dpu_rm_needs_split_display(const struct msm_display_topology *top)
> }
>
> /**
> - * _dpu_rm_check_lm_peer - check if a mixer is a peer of the primary
> + * _dpu_rm_get_lm_peer - get the id of a mixer which is a peer of the primary
... mixer?
> * @rm: dpu resource manager handle
> * @primary_idx: index of primary mixer in rm->mixer_blks[]
> - * @peer_idx: index of other mixer in rm->mixer_blks[]
> - * Return: true if rm->mixer_blks[peer_idx] is a peer of
> - * rm->mixer_blks[primary_idx]
> */
> -static bool _dpu_rm_check_lm_peer(struct dpu_rm *rm, int primary_idx,
> - int peer_idx)
> +static int _dpu_rm_get_lm_peer(struct dpu_rm *rm, int primary_idx)
> {
> const struct dpu_lm_cfg *prim_lm_cfg;
> - const struct dpu_lm_cfg *peer_cfg;
>
> prim_lm_cfg = to_dpu_hw_mixer(rm->mixer_blks[primary_idx])->cap;
> - peer_cfg = to_dpu_hw_mixer(rm->mixer_blks[peer_idx])->cap;
>
> - if (!test_bit(peer_cfg->id, &prim_lm_cfg->lm_pair_mask)) {
> - DPU_DEBUG("lm %d not peer of lm %d\n", peer_cfg->id,
> - peer_cfg->id);
> - return false;
> - }
> - return true;
> + if (prim_lm_cfg->lm_pair >= LM_0 && prim_lm_cfg->lm_pair < LM_MAX)
> + return prim_lm_cfg->lm_pair - LM_0;
> + return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -351,7 +342,7 @@ static int _dpu_rm_reserve_lms(struct dpu_rm *rm,
> int lm_idx[MAX_BLOCKS];
> int pp_idx[MAX_BLOCKS];
> int dspp_idx[MAX_BLOCKS] = {0};
> - int i, j, lm_count = 0;
> + int i, lm_count = 0;
>
> if (!reqs->topology.num_lm) {
> DPU_ERROR("invalid number of lm: %d\n", reqs->topology.num_lm);
> @@ -376,16 +367,15 @@ static int _dpu_rm_reserve_lms(struct dpu_rm *rm,
> ++lm_count;
>
> /* Valid primary mixer found, find matching peers */
> - for (j = i + 1; j < ARRAY_SIZE(rm->mixer_blks) &&
> - lm_count < reqs->topology.num_lm; j++) {
> - if (!rm->mixer_blks[j])
> + if (lm_count < reqs->topology.num_lm) {
> + int j = _dpu_rm_get_lm_peer(rm, i);
> +
> + /* ignore the peer if there is an error or if the peer was already processed */
I would not call this an "error" (though it is -EINVAL): 0 (out of range
of LM_0 <= x M LM_MAX) is a valid value meaning "LM has no peer" and
maybe another error code is more fitting?
> + if (j < 0 || j < i)
> continue;
>
> - if (!_dpu_rm_check_lm_peer(rm, i, j)) {
> - DPU_DEBUG("lm %d not peer of lm %d\n", LM_0 + j,
> - LM_0 + i);
> + if (!rm->mixer_blks[j])
> continue;
This seems silly now, why would an existing LM have a pair to an LM that
might not be in the catalog? Return -EINVAL?
Nits aside, this is some tight cleanup:
Reviewed-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Marijn
> - }
>
> if (!_dpu_rm_check_lm_and_get_connected_blks(rm,
> global_state, enc_id, j,
> --
> 2.39.2
>
