> -----Original Message----- > From: Intel-gfx <intel-gfx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of > Bhadane, Dnyaneshwar > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2024 10:58 AM > To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [PATCH] drm/i915/bios: Update new entries in VBT BDB block > definations > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 7:58 PM > > To: Bhadane, Dnyaneshwar <dnyaneshwar.bhadane@xxxxxxxxx>; intel- > > gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: Bhadane, Dnyaneshwar <dnyaneshwar.bhadane@xxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/bios: Update new entries in VBT BDB > > block definitions Please find the rev v2 here: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/608267/. > > > > On Mon, 12 Aug 2024, Dnyaneshwar Bhadane > > <dnyaneshwar.bhadane@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > New entries updated in BDB defination from VBT v257- v260. > > > > *definition > > > > Please explain what you're adding. > > Thank you, Jani for the feedback, > > I will address all the suggestion above and below in the next revision. > > > > Also, the spec never ceases to amaze me. Like here, adding stuff for a > > few revisions, obsoleting and starting over. Ugh. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dnyaneshwar Bhadane > <dnyaneshwar.bhadane@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vbt_defs.h | 35 > > > ++++++++++++++++--- > > > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vbt_defs.h > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vbt_defs.h > > > index e613288937e4..65342f347bba 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vbt_defs.h > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vbt_defs.h > > > @@ -1080,6 +1080,8 @@ struct bdb_edp { > > > u16 edp_fast_link_training_rate[16]; /* 224+ */ > > > u16 edp_max_port_link_rate[16]; /* > > 244+ */ > > > u16 edp_dsc_disable; /* 251+ */ > > > + u16 t16_delay; /* 260+ */ > > > > Please let's follow the spec in member naming where feasible. > Noted, Thanks. > > > > This would be t6_delay_support. > > > > > + u16 t16_link_idle_time; /* 260+ */ > > > > And this would be u16 link_idle_time[16]. The size is 32 bytes, not 2. > > Noted, I missed to add as an array of [16]. Thank you. > > > > > (Where does t16 come from?) > Noted, Renaming needed. > > > > > } __packed; > > > > > > /* > > > @@ -1330,12 +1332,27 @@ struct aggressiveness_profile2_entry { > > > u8 elp_aggressiveness : 4; > > > } __packed; > > > > > > +struct aggressiveness_profile3_entry { > > > + u8 adp_aggressiveness:4; > > > > apd_aggressiveness > > > > > + u8 po_aggressiveness:4; > > > > pixoptix_aggressiveness > Noted. Thank you. > > > > > +} __packed; > > > + > > > +struct aggressiveness_profile4_entry { > > > + u8 xpst_aggressiveness:4; > > > + u8 tcon_aggressiveness:4; > > > +} __packed; > > > + > > > +struct panel_identification { > > > + u8 panel_type:4; > > > > panel_type is a loaded word in VBT. Let's avoid it. Maybe > > panel_technology or something. > Noted. Thank you. > > > > > + u8 reserved:4; > > > +} __packed; > > > + > > > struct bdb_lfp_power { > > > struct lfp_power_features features; /* > > ???-227 */ > > > struct als_data_entry als[5]; > > > u8 lace_aggressiveness_profile:3; /* > > 210-227 */ > > > u8 reserved1:5; > > > - u16 dpst; /* > > 228+ */ > > > + u16 dpst; /* > > 228-256 */ > > > u16 psr; /* > 228+ */ > > > u16 drrs; /* > > 228+ */ > > > u16 lace_support; /* > > 228+ */ > > > @@ -1343,12 +1360,20 @@ struct bdb_lfp_power { > > > u16 dmrrs; /* > > 228+ */ > > > u16 adb; /* > > 228+ */ > > > u16 lace_enabled_status; /* > > 228+ */ > > > - struct aggressiveness_profile_entry aggressiveness[16]; /* > > 228+ */ > > > + struct aggressiveness_profile_entry aggressiveness[16]; /* > > 228-256 */ > > > > The LACE agressiveness is still valid. Please add the comment to > > struct aggressiveness_profile dpst_aggressiveness member. > Noted. Thank you. > > > > > u16 hobl; /* > > 232+ */ > > > u16 vrr_feature_enabled; /* > > 233+ */ > > > - u16 elp; /* > 247+ */ > > > - u16 opst; /* > > 247+ */ > > > - struct aggressiveness_profile2_entry aggressiveness2[16]; /* > > 247+ */ > > > + u16 elp; /* > 247-256 */ > > > + u16 opst; /* > > 247-256 */ > > > + struct aggressiveness_profile2_entry aggressiveness2[16]; /* > > 247-256 */ > > > + u16 adp; /* > > 253-256 */ > > > > apd > > > > > + u16 po; /* > > 253-256 */ > > > > pixoptix > > > > > + struct aggressiveness_profile3_entry aggressiveness3[16]; /* > > 253-256 */ > > > + struct panel_identification panel_identity[16]; /* > > 257+ */ > > > > panel_identification > Noted. Thank you. > > > > > + u16 xpst; /* > > 257+ */ > > > > xpst_support > > > > > + u16 tcon; /* > > 257+ */ > > > > tcon_based_backlight_optimization > > > > > + struct aggressiveness_profile4_entry aggressiveness4[16]; /* > > 257+ */ > > > + u16 tcon_coexist_xpst; /* > > 257+ */ > > > > Hrmh, this is where the member naming in spec is not feasible. Maybe > > tcon_xpst_coexistence. > Renaming needed. Noted. Thank you. > > Dnyaneshwar > > > > > > } __packed; > > > > > > /* > > > > -- > > Jani Nikula, Intel
