On Sat, 8 Jun 2024 at 02:55, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/7/2024 3:26 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Sat, 8 Jun 2024 at 00:39, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 6/7/2024 2:10 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 12:22:16PM -0700, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 6/7/2024 12:16 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 03:21:11PM -0700, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/13/2024 5:02 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>>>>>> Only several SSPP blocks support such features as YUV output or scaling,
> >>>>>>> thus different DRM planes have different features. Properly utilizing
> >>>>>>> all planes requires the attention of the compositor, who should
> >>>>>>> prefer simpler planes to YUV-supporting ones. Otherwise it is very easy
> >>>>>>> to end up in a situation when all featureful planes are already
> >>>>>>> allocated for simple windows, leaving no spare plane for YUV playback.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> To solve this problem make all planes virtual. Each plane is registered
> >>>>>>> as if it supports all possible features, but then at the runtime during
> >>>>>>> the atomic_check phase the driver selects backing SSPP block for each
> >>>>>>> plane.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Note, this does not provide support for using two different SSPP blocks
> >>>>>>> for a single plane or using two rectangles of an SSPP to drive two
> >>>>>>> planes. Each plane still gets its own SSPP and can utilize either a solo
> >>>>>>> rectangle or both multirect rectangles depending on the resolution.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Note #2: By default support for virtual planes is turned off and the
> >>>>>>> driver still uses old code path with preallocated SSPP block for each
> >>>>>>> plane. To enable virtual planes, pass 'msm.dpu_use_virtual_planes=1'
> >>>>>>> kernel parameter.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I like the overall approach in this patch. Some comments below.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_crtc.c | 50 +++++
> >>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c | 10 +-
> >>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.h | 4 +
> >>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.c | 230 +++++++++++++++++++---
> >>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.h | 19 ++
> >>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_rm.c | 77 ++++++++
> >>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_rm.h | 28 +++
> >>>>>>> 7 files changed, 390 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_crtc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_crtc.c
> >>>>>>> index 88c2e51ab166..794c5643584f 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_crtc.c
> >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_crtc.c
> >>>>>>> @@ -1168,6 +1168,49 @@ static bool dpu_crtc_needs_dirtyfb(struct drm_crtc_state *cstate)
> >>>>>>> return false;
> >>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>> +static int dpu_crtc_reassign_planes(struct drm_crtc *crtc, struct drm_crtc_state *crtc_state)
> >>>>>>> +{
> >>>>>>> + int total_planes = crtc->dev->mode_config.num_total_plane;
> >>>>>>> + struct drm_atomic_state *state = crtc_state->state;
> >>>>>>> + struct dpu_global_state *global_state;
> >>>>>>> + struct drm_plane_state **states;
> >>>>>>> + struct drm_plane *plane;
> >>>>>>> + int ret;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + global_state = dpu_kms_get_global_state(crtc_state->state);
> >>>>>>> + if (IS_ERR(global_state))
> >>>>>>> + return PTR_ERR(global_state);
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + dpu_rm_release_all_sspp(global_state, crtc);
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Do we need to call dpu_rm_release_all_sspp() even in the
> >>>>>> _dpu_plane_atomic_disable()?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It allows the driver to optimize the usage of the SSPP rectangles.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> No, what I meant was that we should call dpu_rm_release_all_sspp() in
> >>>> dpu_plane_atomic_update() as well because in the atomic_check() path where
> >>>> its called today, its being called only for zpos_changed and planes_changed
> >>>> but during disable we must call this for sure.
> >>>
> >>> No. the dpu_rm_release_all_sspp() should only be called during check.
> >>> When dpu_plane_atomic_update() is called, the state should already be
> >>> finalised. The atomic_check() callback is called when a plane is going
> >>> to be disabled.
> >>>
> >>
> >> atomic_check() will be called when plane is disabled but
> >> dpu_rm_release_all_sspp() may not be called as it is protected by
> >> zpos_changed and planes_changed. OR you need to add a !visible check
> >> here to call dpu_rm_release_all_sspp() that time. Thats whay I wrote
> >> previously.
> >
> > Unless I miss something, if a plane gets disabled, then obviously
> > planes_changed is true.
> >
> > [trimmed]
> >
>
> Do you mean DRM fwk sets planes_changed correctly for this case?
>
> Currently we have
>
> if (!new_state->visible) {
> _dpu_plane_atomic_disable(plane);
> } else {
> dpu_plane_sspp_atomic_update(plane);
> }
>
> So I wanted to ensure that when plane gets disabled, its SSPP is freed
> too. If this is confirmed, I do not have any concerns.
This is the atomic_update() path, not the atomic_check()
>
> >>
> >>>>>>> @@ -1486,7 +1593,7 @@ struct drm_plane *dpu_plane_init(struct drm_device *dev,
> >>>>>>> supported_rotations = DRM_MODE_REFLECT_MASK | DRM_MODE_ROTATE_0 | DRM_MODE_ROTATE_180;
> >>>>>>> - if (pipe_hw->cap->features & BIT(DPU_SSPP_INLINE_ROTATION))
> >>>>>>> + if (inline_rotation)
> >>>>>>> supported_rotations |= DRM_MODE_ROTATE_MASK;
> >>>>>>> drm_plane_create_rotation_property(plane,
> >>>>>>> @@ -1494,10 +1601,81 @@ struct drm_plane *dpu_plane_init(struct drm_device *dev,
> >>>>>>> drm_plane_enable_fb_damage_clips(plane);
> >>>>>>> - /* success! finalize initialization */
> >>>>>>> + DPU_DEBUG("%s created for pipe:%u id:%u\n", plane->name,
> >>>>>>> + pipe, plane->base.id);
> >>>>>>> + return plane;
> >>>>>>> +}
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +struct drm_plane *dpu_plane_init(struct drm_device *dev,
> >>>>>>> + uint32_t pipe, enum drm_plane_type type,
> >>>>>>> + unsigned long possible_crtcs)
> >>>>>>> +{
> >>>>>>> + struct drm_plane *plane = NULL;
> >>>>>>> + struct msm_drm_private *priv = dev->dev_private;
> >>>>>>> + struct dpu_kms *kms = to_dpu_kms(priv->kms);
> >>>>>>> + struct dpu_hw_sspp *pipe_hw;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + /* initialize underlying h/w driver */
> >>>>>>> + pipe_hw = dpu_rm_get_sspp(&kms->rm, pipe);
> >>>>>>> + if (!pipe_hw || !pipe_hw->cap || !pipe_hw->cap->sblk) {
> >>>>>>> + DPU_ERROR("[%u]SSPP is invalid\n", pipe);
> >>>>>>> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> >>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + plane = dpu_plane_init_common(dev, type, possible_crtcs,
> >>>>>>> + pipe_hw->cap->features & BIT(DPU_SSPP_INLINE_ROTATION),
> >>>>>>> + pipe_hw->cap->sblk->format_list,
> >>>>>>> + pipe_hw->cap->sblk->num_formats,
> >>>>>>> + pipe);
> >>>>>>> + if (IS_ERR(plane))
> >>>>>>> + return plane;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> drm_plane_helper_add(plane, &dpu_plane_helper_funcs);
> >>>>>>> DPU_DEBUG("%s created for pipe:%u id:%u\n", plane->name,
> >>>>>>> pipe, plane->base.id);
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + return plane;
> >>>>>>> +}
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +struct drm_plane *dpu_plane_init_virtual(struct drm_device *dev,
> >>>>>>> + enum drm_plane_type type,
> >>>>>>> + unsigned long possible_crtcs)
> >>>>>>> +{
> >>>>>>> + struct drm_plane *plane = NULL;
> >>>>>>> + struct msm_drm_private *priv = dev->dev_private;
> >>>>>>> + struct dpu_kms *kms = to_dpu_kms(priv->kms);
> >>>>>>> + bool has_inline_rotation = false;
> >>>>>>> + const u32 *format_list = NULL;
> >>>>>>> + u32 num_formats = 0;
> >>>>>>> + int i;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + /* Determine the largest configuration that we can implement */
> >>>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < kms->catalog->sspp_count; i++) {
> >>>>>>> + const struct dpu_sspp_cfg *cfg = &kms->catalog->sspp[i];
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + if (test_bit(DPU_SSPP_INLINE_ROTATION, &cfg->features))
> >>>>>>> + has_inline_rotation = true;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + if (!format_list ||
> >>>>>>> + cfg->sblk->csc_blk.len) {
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But format_list is being assigned to NULL just a few lines above. Why is
> >>>>>> this check needed?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It was assigned before the loop.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, I got this part but missed on why we needed the loop at all.
> >>>
> >>> Which set of formats should the virtual plane use?
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I dont get why this part can also goto dpu_plane_init_common() as it looks
> >>>>>> identical to me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And it is not. For the non-virtual case there is no loop around formats
> >>>>> list assignment.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Ah okay, I misunderstood the logic. After reading the comment above the loop
> >>>> I get what you are trying to do here.
> >>>>
> >>>> But I dont get why you really need to do that?
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) In this patch the relationship between virtual plane and SSPP is still
> >>>> 1:1 so what is wrong to retain the sspp's actual format for the plane rather
> >>>> than picking the best format (you are targetting Vig SSPP)
> >>>
> >>> No. With this patch there is no 1:1 relationship. The RM will select the
> >>> SSPP that suits the requirements (YUV, scaling, rotation, etc).
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes but there is always only one SSPP for one plane is what I meant.
> >> That does not change till the next patch.
> >>
> >> In that sense, I dont see why you need to expose the superset of formats.
> >
> > Let me please repeat my question: what set of formats should be used
> > for plane init?
> >
>
> So, my point here was that in the loop, in this patch, we create one
> plane for one SSPP, why dont we just use the same SSPP's format for that
> plane.
Which SSPP? There is no SSPP attached to a virtual plane.
>
> In the next patch, when the same plane can attach to two different
> SSPPs, we will use the superset of the SSPPs. IOW, do we need the
> superset in this patch itself?
>
> >>
> >>>> In fact, that will reduce atomic_check() failures with this patch because
> >>>> compositor will still work the same way as it used to work before by not
> >>>> trying an unsupported format on a plane.
> >>>
> >>> The virtual plane should support any of the formats that the backing
> >>> hardware can support. If (for example) we only had RGB-only and YUV-only
> >>> hardware blocks, the driver would have to construct a _superset_ of
> >>> those formats. Fortunately this is not the case and VIG supports a
> >>> strict superset of what DMA (or RGB) SSPP supports.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes, thats why I said plane_formats_yuv is enough in my next point below
> >> because Vig is super set of DMA or IOW Vig is the most feature rich plane.
> >
> > QCM2290 doesn't have YUV support if I'm not mistaken.
> >
>
> qcm2290_sspp has YUV support but no scaling support as per the catalog.
> It uses _VIG_SBLK_NOSCALE which still has plane_formats_yuv.
I'll check it on the real hw. I remember that I had questions regarding it.
>
> >>
> >>>> If one plane maps to two SSPPs, then yes we can go with the superset of
> >>>> formats but that comes in a later patch right?
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) So even if we want to do it this way from this patch itself, I think all
> >>>> you are looking for is whether there is a Vig SSPP and if so use
> >>>> plane_formats_yuv. There is no need for this loop IMO.
> >>>>
> >>>> 3) I noticed that virt_format_list is still present in the driver. If you
> >>>> are planning to not use that perhaps drop it with this series.
> >>>
> >>> Ack
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> + format_list = cfg->sblk->format_list;
> >>>>>>> + num_formats = cfg->sblk->num_formats;
> >>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + plane = dpu_plane_init_common(dev, type, possible_crtcs,
> >>>>>>> + has_inline_rotation,
> >>>>>>> + format_list,
> >>>>>>> + num_formats,
> >>>>>>> + SSPP_NONE);
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ok, here is the part which we were discussing in
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/582820/?series=131109&rev=1#comment_1087370
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So yes, that part belongs to this patch.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'll check it while preparing the next iteration.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> + if (IS_ERR(plane))
> >>>>>>> + return plane;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + drm_plane_helper_add(plane, &dpu_plane_virtual_helper_funcs);
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + DPU_DEBUG("%s created virtual id:%u\n", plane->name, plane->base.id);
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> return plane;
> >>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.h
> >>>>>>> index a3ae45dc95d0..15f7d60d8b85 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.h
> >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.h
> >>>>>>> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
> >>>>>>> * @plane_fetch_bw: calculated BW per plane
> >>>>>>> * @plane_clk: calculated clk per plane
> >>>>>>> * @needs_dirtyfb: whether attached CRTC needs pixel data explicitly flushed
> >>>>>>> + * @saved_fmt: format used by the plane's FB, saved for for virtual plane support
> >>>>>>> */
> >>>>>>> struct dpu_plane_state {
> >>>>>>> struct drm_plane_state base;
> >>>>>>> @@ -46,6 +47,8 @@ struct dpu_plane_state {
> >>>>>>> u64 plane_clk;
> >>>>>>> bool needs_dirtyfb;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + const struct dpu_format *saved_fmt;
> >>>>>>> };
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why is saved_fmt needed?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The use-case which comes to my mind is lets say if we have a RGB format and
> >>>>>> we need to switch to a YUV format, basically switch from DMA to ViG SSPP,
> >>>>>> then yes we have to mark planes_changed as we need to switch the underlying
> >>>>>> SSPP that time, but why cant we simply check that by means of a check to see
> >>>>>> if the fmt is YUV and whether CSC block is present in the SSPP.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, correct. And vice versa, going from YUV to RGB might free the VIG
> >>>>> SSPP.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This will lead to dpu_crtc_reassign_planes() getting called for format
> >>>>>> changes even when the new format might be available in the same SSPP.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So use 'needs_vig' instead of storing the format? Sounds good to me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes thats the idea. Basically "needs_reassignment". You could even go from
> >>>> Vig to DMA if the use-case can just use DMA to save up Vig.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, do we really need to cache anything in the plane state to track this?
> >>>>
> >>>> If we have a function called dpu_crtc_needs_plane_reassignment() will go
> >>>> through the current plane state and the current SSPP from the global state
> >>>> and see if needs reassignment.
> >>>
> >>> No, looking at the global state won't be possible here. I'd have to lock
> >>> the private object before consulting it, which might cause EDEADLOCK
> >>> later on during resource reallocation. So all necessary information
> >>> should be stored in the dpu_plane_state.
> >>>
> >>
> >> But you are already calling dpu_kms_get_global_state() in
> >> dpu_crtc_reassign_planes().
> >
> > It happens at a different point. And I'm not sure how modeset locking
> > will react to an attempt to lock the private object twice.
> >
>
> hmm, I am missing the code flow a bit.
>
> Inside drm_atomic_helper_check_planes(), we first have plane's
> atomic_check followed by crtc's.
>
> In plane's atomic_check is where we are setting planes_changed by
> checking whether we need re-assignment of SSPPs.
>
> In CRTC's atomic_check is where we have the logic to check
> planes_changed and reassign the SSPPs.
>
> We already call dpu_kms_get_global_state() in crtc atomic_check which
> means we acquire the ctx for the private object.
>
> Would it be incorrect to acquire it in plane's atomic_check?
>
> If so, can we do one of below:
>
> 1) call drm_modeset_drop_locks() before plane's atomic_check ends. That
> way within the drm_atomic_helper_check_planes(), only one ctx is tracked
> at a time.
No, if I understand it correctly, this would drop all lock, so all the
objects are unlocked.
>
> 2) if (1) wont work, would dpu_kms_get_existing_global_state() help? For
> that one we do not need the locking.
I'll check whether this works as expected.
But really I don't see a problem that you are trying to solve. It is
too early to run SSPP allocation before dpu_crtc_atomic_check(). We
need a set of all the plane states that are used by the CRTC. Even
though it is not needed for this patch (it can work with just single
plane state), it doesn't make sense to rewire that again, within the
same patchset.
>
>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> #define to_dpu_plane_state(x) \
> >>>>>>> @@ -75,6 +78,16 @@ struct drm_plane *dpu_plane_init(struct drm_device *dev,
> >>>>>>> uint32_t pipe, enum drm_plane_type type,
> >>>>>>> unsigned long possible_crtcs);
> >>>>>>> +/**
> >>>>>>> + * dpu_plane_init_virtual - create new dpu virtualized plane
> >>>>>>> + * @dev: Pointer to DRM device
> >>>>>>> + * @type: Plane type - PRIMARY/OVERLAY/CURSOR
> >>>>>>> + * @possible_crtcs: bitmask of crtc that can be attached to the given pipe
> >>>>>>> + */
> >>>>>>> +struct drm_plane *dpu_plane_init_virtual(struct drm_device *dev,
> >>>>>>> + enum drm_plane_type type,
> >>>>>>> + unsigned long possible_crtcs);
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> /**
> >>>>>>> * dpu_plane_color_fill - enables color fill on plane
> >>>>>>> * @plane: Pointer to DRM plane object
> >>>>>>> @@ -91,4 +104,10 @@ void dpu_plane_danger_signal_ctrl(struct drm_plane *plane, bool enable);
> >>>>>>> static inline void dpu_plane_danger_signal_ctrl(struct drm_plane *plane, bool enable) {}
> >>>>>>> #endif
> >>>>>>> +int dpu_assign_plane_resources(struct dpu_global_state *global_state,
> >>>>>>> + struct drm_atomic_state *state,
> >>>>>>> + struct drm_crtc *crtc,
> >>>>>>> + struct drm_plane_state **states,
> >>>>>>> + unsigned int num_planes);
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> #endif /* _DPU_PLANE_H_ */
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_rm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_rm.c
> >>>>>>> index 44938ba7a2b7..7264a4d44a14 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_rm.c
> >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_rm.c
> >>>>>>> @@ -694,6 +694,83 @@ int dpu_rm_reserve(
> >>>>>>> return ret;
> >>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>> +struct dpu_hw_sspp *dpu_rm_reserve_sspp(struct dpu_rm *rm,
> >>>>>>> + struct dpu_global_state *global_state,
> >>>>>>> + struct drm_crtc *crtc,
> >>>>>>> + struct dpu_rm_sspp_requirements *reqs)
> >>>>>>> +{
> >>>>>>> + uint32_t crtc_id = crtc->base.id;
> >>>>>>> + unsigned int weight, best_weght = UINT_MAX;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> best_weight?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> + struct dpu_hw_sspp *hw_sspp;
> >>>>>>> + unsigned long mask = 0;
> >>>>>>> + int i, best_idx = -1;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + /*
> >>>>>>> + * Don't take cursor feature into consideration until there is proper support for SSPP_CURSORn.
> >>>>>>> + */
> >>>>>>> + mask |= BIT(DPU_SSPP_CURSOR);
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + if (reqs->scale)
> >>>>>>> + mask |= BIT(DPU_SSPP_SCALER_RGB) |
> >>>>>>> + BIT(DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED2) |
> >>>>>>> + BIT(DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED3_COMPATIBLE);
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + if (reqs->yuv)
> >>>>>>> + mask |= BIT(DPU_SSPP_CSC) |
> >>>>>>> + BIT(DPU_SSPP_CSC_10BIT);
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + if (reqs->rot90)
> >>>>>>> + mask |= BIT(DPU_SSPP_INLINE_ROTATION);
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(rm->hw_sspp); i++) {
> >>>>>>> + if (!rm->hw_sspp[i])
> >>>>>>> + continue;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + if (global_state->sspp_to_crtc_id[i])
> >>>>>>> + continue;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + hw_sspp = rm->hw_sspp[i];
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + /* skip incompatible planes */
> >>>>>>> + if (reqs->scale && !hw_sspp->cap->sblk->scaler_blk.len)
> >>>>>>> + continue;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + if (reqs->yuv && !hw_sspp->cap->sblk->csc_blk.len)
> >>>>>>> + continue;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + if (reqs->rot90 && !(hw_sspp->cap->features & DPU_SSPP_INLINE_ROTATION))
> >>>>>>> + continue;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + /*
> >>>>>>> + * For non-yuv, non-scaled planes prefer simple (DMA or RGB)
> >>>>>>> + * plane, falling back to VIG only if there are no such planes.
> >>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>> + * This way we'd leave VIG sspps to be later used for YUV formats.
> >>>>>>> + */
> >>>>>>> + weight = hweight64(hw_sspp->cap->features & ~mask);
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This approach is assuming that ViG feature masks are more than DMA.
> >>>>>> Hence the hweight of DMA SSPP's features is less than hweight of ViG SSPPs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Is this really true? Because there are other bits such as DMA_SDM845_MASK
> >>>>>> which might increase the hweight of DMA SSPPs
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which bits are present in the DMA mask, which are not present in the VIG
> >>>>> mask? Also for the older platforms there are three kinds of planes: VIG,
> >>>>> DMA and RGB. The selection algorithm should not require significant
> >>>>> changes to support that case.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> DMA_SDM845_MASK has DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL which is not there in VIG_MSM8998_MASK
> >>>> afaict. But we really cannot be counting the number of feature bits and
> >>>> going by that.
> >>>
> >>> MSM8998 uses DMA_MSM8998_MASK, not DMA_SDM845_MASK.
> >>>
>
> I forgot to update this point, for sm6375_sspp, it uses DMA_SDM845_MASK
> for DMA and VIG_SDM845_MASK for VIG. So my point is applicable for
> sm6375 atleast.
DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL is enabled in both VIG_SDM845_MASK and DMA_SDM845_MASK
> >>>> Hence, inherently, going by hweight is not right because whenever we add a
> >>>> catalog change to add a new feature bit to SSPP, we have to come back here
> >>>> and make sure this logic will not break.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I would rather make it simpler.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1) if we need scaling || yuv, then we have to get only a Vig
> >>>>>> 2) else, first try to get a DMA SSPP
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How would you distinguish between VIG and DMA?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> the type SSPP_TYPE_VIG OR SSPP_TYPE_DMA. We also have a SSPP_TYPE_RGB so
> >>>> that should address your concern about the third type of plane (Vig, DMA,
> >>>> RGB).
> >>>
> >>> I don't particularly like the idea of using type. We still need to
> >>> evaluate plane's features. Consider QCM2290, where VIG planes do not
> >>> support scaling.
> >>>
> >>> I will evaluate if I can rework this part to use type, while still
> >>> checking for the feature bit. BTW: should we prefer RGB or DMA plane if
> >>> all other conditions are met?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ok, qcm2290 really seems like an odd case but point taken.
> >>
> >> I am fine if it needs to be a combination of type and feature bit but
> >> certainly not hweight of feature bit. If you want to use type along with
> >> presence of scaler blk feature bit thats fine.
> >>
> >> I need to check if there is any feature loss in RGB Vs DMA. Let me check
> >> and get back. This needs some history digging.
> >
> > Sure.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
