On 6/27/2024 4:22 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 at 00:21, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 6/27/2024 2:13 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 1:53 PM Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On QCM2290 chipset DPU does not support UBWC.
Add a dpu cap to indicate this and do not expose compressed formats
in this case.
Signed-off-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_5_qcm2290.h | 1 +
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h | 2 ++
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.c | 5 ++++-
3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_5_qcm2290.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_5_qcm2290.h
index 3cbb2fe8aba2..6671f798bacc 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_5_qcm2290.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_5_qcm2290.h
@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ static const struct dpu_caps qcm2290_dpu_caps = {
.max_mixer_blendstages = 0x4,
.has_dim_layer = true,
.has_idle_pc = true,
+ .has_no_ubwc = true,
.max_linewidth = 2160,
.pixel_ram_size = DEFAULT_PIXEL_RAM_SIZE,
};
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 af2ead1c4886..676d0a283922 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h
@@ -342,6 +342,7 @@ struct dpu_rotation_cfg {
* @has_dim_layer dim layer feature status
* @has_idle_pc indicate if idle power collapse feature is supported
* @has_3d_merge indicate if 3D merge is supported
+ * @has_no_ubwc indicate if UBWC is supported
* @max_linewidth max linewidth for sspp
* @pixel_ram_size size of latency hiding and de-tiling buffer in bytes
* @max_hdeci_exp max horizontal decimation supported (max is 2^value)
@@ -354,6 +355,7 @@ struct dpu_caps {
bool has_dim_layer;
bool has_idle_pc;
bool has_3d_merge;
+ bool has_no_ubwc;
has_no_ubwc sounds kinda awkward compared to has_ubwc. But I guess
you wanted to avoid all that churn..
Yes I wanted to avoid modifying all the catalogs.
How about instead, if msm_mdss_data::ubwc_{enc,dec}_version are zero,
then we know there is no ubwc support in the display.
hmm ... should work .... I can post a v2 with this and avoid touching
the catalog altogether.
Yes, this sounds much better.
Ok, does this qualify for a Fixes tag too? Because exposing ubwc formats
on non-ubwc supported chipsets seems like a bug.
