On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 01:23:24PM -0700, Jessica Zhang wrote:
>
>
> On 10/14/2024 12:13 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 13, 2024 at 07:37:20PM -0700, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
> > > Hi Dmitry
> > >
> > > On 10/13/2024 5:20 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 10:25:13AM -0700, Jessica Zhang wrote:
> > > > > Only enable the merge_3d block for the video phys encoder when the 3d
> > > > > blend mode is not *_NONE since there is no need to activate the merge_3d
> > > > > block for cases where merge_3d is not needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: 3e79527a33a8 ("drm/msm/dpu: enable merge_3d support on sm8150/sm8250")
> > > > > Suggested-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > > - Added more detailed commit message
> > > > > - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241009-merge3d-fix-v1-1-0d0b6f5c244e@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_encoder_phys_vid.c | 2 +-
> > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > LGTM now. Please clarify, is there any dependency between this patch and
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> > > No dependency as such. Both are tackling similar issues though. One for
> > > video mode and the other for writeback thats all. Namely:
> > >
> > > 1) We should not be enabling merge_3d block if two LMs are not being used as
> > > that block needs to be enabled only to merge two streams. If its always
> > > enabled, its incorrect programming because as per the docs its mentioned "if
> > > required". Even if thats not causing issues, I would prefer not to enable it
> > > always due to the "if required" clause and also we dont need to enable a
> > > hardware sub-block unnecessarily.
> > >
> > > 2) We should be flushing the merge_3d only if its active like Jessica wrote
> > > in the commit message of [1]. Otherwise, the flush bit will never be taken
> > > by hardware leading to the false timeout errors.
> > >
> > > It has been sent as two patches as one is for video mode and the other for
> > > writeback and for writeback it includes both (1) and (2) together in the
> > > same patch.
> >
> > I think it's better to handle (1) in a single patch (both for video and
> > WB) and (2) in another patch. This way it becomes more obvious that WB
> > had two different independent issues issues.
>
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> Just to clarify, the patches are already being split this way.
I had a different understanding of them, but after going through the
patches second time, you are right.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
