On 7/4/2023 12:01 PM, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 7/4/2023 10:28 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 at 19:10, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 7/4/2023 4:52 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 at 13:06, Dmitry Baryshkov
<dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 at 07:04, Abhinav Kumar
<quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 7/3/2023 7:20 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 03/07/2023 05:01, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 6/19/2023 2:25 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
There is always a single MDP TOP block. Drop the mdp_count
field and
stop declaring dpu_mdp_cfg instances as arrays.
Tested-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
The change drops mdp_count and stops using the array which is
fine and
I will support that.
But looking at the pattern I saw while using core_revision, both
DPU_MDP_VSYNC_SEL and DPU_MDP_AUDIO_SELECT can also be dropped from
the catalog in favor of using core_revision.
Hence for that, I request you not to stop passing dpu_mdss_cfg to
dpu_hw_mdptop_init as that has the necessary information of
core_revision.
Sure, I'll restore it. Please note, however, that it might be
better to
pass struct dpu_caps instead of the full struct dpu_mdss_cfg.
Thanks for restoring.
Can you pls explain this better? dpu_core_rev is part of
dpu_mdss_cfg,
so dpu_caps wont be enough for this one.
Oh, true. For some reason I thought that version is a part of
dpu_caps.
And after additional thought. Maybe it would be better to add a
separate struct dpu_mdss_version and pass it to the hw block init
functions?
I would like to see this evolve. Today, we are assuming that only the hw
block init functions are the places we would use those.
From what I recall, the DSC over DP series needed the core_revision in
the timing gen code somewhere.
I hope you are talking about the DPU driver here, not about the DP
driver. For the DP driver please use struct msm_dp_desc.
Yes DPU driver.
If we see that pattern is possible once that lands, why not.
Right now, I would leave it at dpu_mdss_cfg.
Changed my mind on this due to two reasons:
1) the earlier agreement was to pass dpu_mdss_cfg but passing that will
be against the design of dpu_hw_*** functions because they have stopped
passing the index and as dpu_intf_cfg is encapsulated within
dpu_mdss_cfg, passing both is duplicated information.
2) I have cross-checked that even for DSC over DP, we should be able to
pass dpu_kms->catalog->mdss_rev with this approach like I have posted now
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_3_0_msm8998.h | 7 +---
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_4_0_sdm845.h | 7 +---
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_0_sm8150.h | 7 +---
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_1_sc8180x.h | 7 +---
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_0_sm8250.h | 7 +---
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_2_sc7180.h | 7 +---
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_3_sm6115.h | 7 +---
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_4_sm6350.h | 7 +---
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_5_qcm2290.h | 7 +---
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_9_sm6375.h | 7 +---
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_7_0_sm8350.h | 7 +---
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_7_2_sc7280.h | 7 +---
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_0_sc8280xp.h | 7 +---
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_1_sm8450.h | 7 +---
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_9_0_sm8550.h | 7 +---
.../gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h | 1 -
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_top.c | 38
+++----------------
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_top.h | 8 ++--
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c | 4 +-
19 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 115 deletions(-)
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
