Am Freitag, 3. Mai 2024, 14:57:03 CEST schrieb Quentin Schulz:
> Hi Heiko,
>
> On 4/25/24 9:55 PM, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> > From: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The rk3588 VOP2 has 4 video-ports, yet the driver currently only
> > configures the first 3, as used on the rk3568.
> >
>
> I'm wondering whether we should update the drawing at the top of the
> driver then?
>
> > Add another block to configure the vp3 as well, if applicable.
> >
> > Fixes: 5a028e8f062f ("drm/rockchip: vop2: Add support for rk3588")
> > Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.h | 1 +
> > 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.c
> > index 523880a4e8e74..1a327a9ed7ee4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.c
> > @@ -2303,6 +2303,7 @@ static void vop2_setup_alpha(struct vop2_video_port *vp)
> > static void vop2_setup_layer_mixer(struct vop2_video_port *vp)
> > {
> > struct vop2 *vop2 = vp->vop2;
> > + const struct vop2_data *vop2_data = vop2->data;
> > struct drm_plane *plane;
> > u32 layer_sel = 0;
> > u32 port_sel;
> > @@ -2344,6 +2345,17 @@ static void vop2_setup_layer_mixer(struct vop2_video_port *vp)
> > else
> > port_sel |= FIELD_PREP(RK3568_OVL_PORT_SET__PORT2_MUX, 8);
> >
> > + /* configure vp3 */
> > + if (vop2_data->soc_id == 3588) {
>
> I think it'd be smarter to check against vop2->data->nr_vps >= 4; so
> that we don't need to maintain a list of SoCs that support a specific
> number of video ports.
probably ;-)
>
> > + struct vop2_video_port *vp3 = &vop2->vps[3];
>
> This is always possible because vps is statically allocated for 4 items,
> c.f. struct vop2_video_port vps[ROCKCHIP_MAX_CRTC]; so we don't
> necessarily need it in this specific location and can group it with the
> others. Cosmetic suggestion though.
>
> Otherwise, the change itself makes sense to me, so:
>
> Reviewed-by: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@xxxxxxxxx>
though comments from Andy from Rockchip in another thread suggest that
this is not necessary at all, as the "last" vp somehow has a hardware lock
to take the remaining layers or so.
And while tracking down dsi issues I had a "binary" state of
"gray display" without this patch and working DSI with it, in the last days
I haven't been able to reproduce this anymore.
So I guess I'll fix up the first patch according to your comment and keep
this change here for later.
Heiko
