On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 at 21:52, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 10/6/2023 6:14 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > As we have dropped the variadic parts of SSPP sub-blocks declarations, > > deduplicate them now, reducing memory cruft. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_3_0_msm8998.h | 16 +-- > > .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_4_0_sdm845.h | 16 +-- > > .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_0_sm8150.h | 16 +-- > > .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_1_sc8180x.h | 16 +-- > > .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_4_sm6125.h | 6 +- > > .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_0_sm8250.h | 16 +-- > > .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_2_sc7180.h | 8 +- > > .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_3_sm6115.h | 4 +- > > .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_4_sm6350.h | 8 +- > > .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_5_qcm2290.h | 4 +- > > .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_9_sm6375.h | 4 +- > > .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_7_0_sm8350.h | 16 +-- > > .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_7_2_sc7280.h | 8 +- > > .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_0_sc8280xp.h | 16 +-- > > .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_1_sm8450.h | 16 +-- > > .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_9_0_sm8550.h | 20 ++-- > > .../gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c | 97 +++++-------------- > > 17 files changed, 120 insertions(+), 167 deletions(-) > > > > <snip> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_9_0_sm8550.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_9_0_sm8550.h > > index e60427f54b27..860feb9c54e6 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_9_0_sm8550.h > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_9_0_sm8550.h > > @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ static const struct dpu_sspp_cfg sm8550_sspp[] = { > > .name = "sspp_0", .id = SSPP_VIG0, > > .base = 0x4000, .len = 0x344, > > .features = VIG_SC7180_MASK, > > - .sblk = &sm8550_vig_sblk_0, > > + .sblk = &dpu_vig_sblk_qseed3_3_2, > > Some of this naming doesnt sound right to me. What I had suggested was > just dpu_vig_sblk_scaler_x_y but what is used is dpu_vig_sblk_qseedx_x_y > > This is not correct because technically sm8550 was qseed4 as its scaler > version is > 0x3000 > > So this adds some discrepancy in the naming. And as I wrote, scaler is also not correct. We know qseed2 and rgb scalers, which use different versioning (if they have versions at all). I used qseed3, as it is the base version of the qseed3 / 3lite / 4 scalers. Of course we can switch back to 3/3lite/4, but I thought that it was not that related to the hardware. -- With best wishes Dmitry