On 16/02/2022 04:34, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 2/15/2022 4:20 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 23:21, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 2/15/2022 10:42 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 20:42, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 2/15/2022 9:28 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:On Tue 15 Feb 11:14 CST 2022, Abhinav Kumar wrote:On 2/14/2022 8:33 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:From: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Add SC8180x to the hardware catalog, for initial support for theplatform. Due to limitations in the DP driver only one of the four DPinterfaces is left enabled.The SC8180x platform supports the newly added DPU_INTF_WIDEBUS flag and the Windows-on-Snapdragon bootloader leaves the widebus bit set, so thisis flagged appropriately to ensure widebus is disabled - for now. Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [bjorn: Reworked intf and irq definitions] Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Changes since v1: - Dropped widebus flag.../gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c | 129 ++++++++++++++++++.../gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h | 1 + drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c | 1 + drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c | 1 + 4 files changed, 132 insertions(+)diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.cindex aa75991903a6..7ac0fe32df49 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c @@ -90,6 +90,17 @@ BIT(MDP_INTF3_INTR) | \ BIT(MDP_INTF4_INTR)) +#define IRQ_SC8180X_MASK (BIT(MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR) | \ + BIT(MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR2) | \ + BIT(MDP_SSPP_TOP0_HIST_INTR) | \ + BIT(MDP_INTF0_INTR) | \ + BIT(MDP_INTF1_INTR) | \ + BIT(MDP_INTF2_INTR) | \ + BIT(MDP_INTF3_INTR) | \ + BIT(MDP_INTF4_INTR) | \ + BIT(MDP_INTF5_INTR) | \ + BIT(MDP_AD4_0_INTR) | \ + BIT(MDP_AD4_1_INTR)) #define DEFAULT_PIXEL_RAM_SIZE (50 * 1024) #define DEFAULT_DPU_LINE_WIDTH 2048@@ -225,6 +236,22 @@ static const struct dpu_caps sm8150_dpu_caps = {.max_vdeci_exp = MAX_VERT_DECIMATION, }; +static const struct dpu_caps sc8180x_dpu_caps = { + .max_mixer_width = DEFAULT_DPU_OUTPUT_LINE_WIDTH, + .max_mixer_blendstages = 0xb, + .qseed_type = DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED3, + .smart_dma_rev = DPU_SSPP_SMART_DMA_V2, /* TODO: v2.5 */ + .ubwc_version = DPU_HW_UBWC_VER_30, + .has_src_split = true, + .has_dim_layer = true, + .has_idle_pc = true, + .has_3d_merge = true, + .max_linewidth = 4096, + .pixel_ram_size = DEFAULT_PIXEL_RAM_SIZE, + .max_hdeci_exp = MAX_HORZ_DECIMATION, + .max_vdeci_exp = MAX_VERT_DECIMATION, +}; + static const struct dpu_caps sm8250_dpu_caps = { .max_mixer_width = DEFAULT_DPU_OUTPUT_LINE_WIDTH, .max_mixer_blendstages = 0xb,@@ -293,6 +320,31 @@ static const struct dpu_mdp_cfg sc7180_mdp[] = {}, }; +static const struct dpu_mdp_cfg sc8180x_mdp[] = { + { + .name = "top_0", .id = MDP_TOP, + .base = 0x0, .len = 0x45C, + .features = 0, + .highest_bank_bit = 0x3, + .clk_ctrls[DPU_CLK_CTRL_VIG0] = { + .reg_off = 0x2AC, .bit_off = 0}, + .clk_ctrls[DPU_CLK_CTRL_VIG1] = { + .reg_off = 0x2B4, .bit_off = 0}, + .clk_ctrls[DPU_CLK_CTRL_VIG2] = { + .reg_off = 0x2BC, .bit_off = 0}, + .clk_ctrls[DPU_CLK_CTRL_VIG3] = { + .reg_off = 0x2C4, .bit_off = 0}, + .clk_ctrls[DPU_CLK_CTRL_DMA0] = { + .reg_off = 0x2AC, .bit_off = 8}, + .clk_ctrls[DPU_CLK_CTRL_DMA1] = { + .reg_off = 0x2B4, .bit_off = 8}, + .clk_ctrls[DPU_CLK_CTRL_CURSOR0] = { + .reg_off = 0x2BC, .bit_off = 8}, + .clk_ctrls[DPU_CLK_CTRL_CURSOR1] = { + .reg_off = 0x2C4, .bit_off = 8}, + }, +}; + static const struct dpu_mdp_cfg sm8250_mdp[] = { { .name = "top_0", .id = MDP_TOP,@@ -861,6 +913,16 @@ static const struct dpu_intf_cfg sc7280_intf[] = { INTF_BLK("intf_5", INTF_5, 0x39000, INTF_DP, MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_1, 24, INTF_SC7280_MASK, MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 22, 23),}; +static const struct dpu_intf_cfg sc8180x_intf[] = {+ INTF_BLK("intf_0", INTF_0, 0x6A000, INTF_DP, MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_0, 24, INTF_SC7180_MASK, MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 24, 25), + INTF_BLK("intf_1", INTF_1, 0x6A800, INTF_DSI, 0, 24, INTF_SC7180_MASK, MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 26, 27), + INTF_BLK("intf_2", INTF_2, 0x6B000, INTF_DSI, 1, 24, INTF_SC7180_MASK, MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 28, 29), + /* INTF_3 is for MST, wired to INTF_DP 0 and 1, use dummy index until this is supported */ + INTF_BLK("intf_3", INTF_3, 0x6B800, INTF_DP, 999, 24, INTF_SC7180_MASK, MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 30, 31), + INTF_BLK("intf_4", INTF_4, 0x6C000, INTF_DP, MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_1, 24, INTF_SC7180_MASK, MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 20, 21), + INTF_BLK("intf_5", INTF_5, 0x6C800, INTF_DP, MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_2, 24, INTF_SC7180_MASK, MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 22, 23),This is a continued discussion from https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/474179/. Shouldnt INTF_5 be marked as INTF_eDP?Might be, I didn't even know we had an INTF_EDP define...Is there any reason to distinguish DP and EDP in the DPU? I see sc7280doesn't distinguish the DP and EDP interfaces. Regards, BjornLike I have mentioned in the other patch, I think we have enoughconfusion between eDP and DP with the common driver. Since DPU does haveseparate interfaces I think we should fix that.Regarding sc7280 using INTF_DP, I synced up with Sankeerth. He referredto your changehttps://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/457776/?series=92992&rev=5 as itwas posted earlier and ended up using the same INTF_DP macro. So its turning out to be a cyclical error. I think we should fix both.So, what is the value for DPU to distinguish between eDP and DP interfaces?Would we get anything except the (intf_type == INTF_EDP || intf_type == INTF_DP) instead of (intf_type == INTF_DP) in all the cases where the type is checked?There are only two places currently where I am seeing this OR condition between INTF_DP and INTF_eDP. I do not have an example to give you today of where we would need to distinguish eDP and DP but I cannot guarantee we will not have such a case.(thus leading us to cases when someone would forget to add INTF_EDP next to INTF_DP) Also, if we are switching from INTF_DP to INTF_EDP, should we stop using end-to-end numbering (like MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_2 for INTF_5) and add a separate numbering scheme for INTF_EDP?We should change the controller ID to match what it actually is. Now that you pointed this out, this looks even more confusing to me to say that MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_2 is actually a EDP controller because fundamentally and even hardware block wise they are different.So, do we split msm_priv->dp too? It's indexed using MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_n entries. Do we want to teach drm/msm/dp code that there are priv->dp[] and priv->edp arrays?ok so now priv->dp and priv->edp arrays are also in the picture here :)Actually all these questions should have probably come when we were figuring out how best to re-use eDP and DP driver.Either way atleast, its good we are documenting all these questions on this thread so that anyone can refer this to know what all was missed out :)priv->dp is of type msm_dp. When re-using DP driver for eDP and sincestruct msm_dp is the shared struct between dpu and the msm/dp, I get your point of re-using MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_* as thats being use to index.So MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_* is more of an index into the DP driver and not really a hardware indexing scheme.If we split into two arrays, we need more changes to dpu_encoder too. Too instrusive a change at this point, even though probably correct.But are you seeing more changes required even if we just change INTF_DP to INTF_eDP for the eDP entries? What are the challenges there?Why do we want to keep building something on top of this confusing terminology knowing that it can be corrected when its fairly in the development stage rather than realizing later it will break. We have only been discussing that eDP and DP are treated equally in the DPU code and hence why do we need to distinguish. As per current code yes, but I cannot and probably noone else can guarantee that in future there can be cases were we want to distinguish the two for something.Me too. For now I see INTF_DP as a useful abstraction for 'the interface that's handled by drm/msm/dp and shares common timing requirements'.struct msm_dp is the useful abstraction already for drm/msm/dp. Not INTF_DP.At this moment I estimate that splitting it properly into INTF_DP and INTF_EDP can bring more troubles than possible future cases.Can you please elaborate why changing INTF_DP to INTF_eDP is more trouble if we leave the MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_* intact?If at some point we were to distinguish DP and eDP usecases of INTF_DP, I would suggest adding is_embedded property rather than splitting away INTF_EDP.Can you please elaborate on this is_embedded idea?
If we need to distinguish DP and eDP behind the INTF_DP we can explicitly ask msm_dp_is_embedded_dp().
It's good to think about future cases and expansions. But it's too easy to create a monstruosos constructs supporting all possible features that no one can understand, grok and maintain. Been there, created several of them, refactored others. Let me throw in yet-another-possible-if: if at some point the hardware supported iDP using the same DP block, would you split INTF_iDP? >Thats the overally consensus within our team. So if this going to work smoothly by just fixing two entries in the hw catalog I would rather do that now rather than realizing this down the line again just to save usage of one more enum.With all that in mind I'd suggest to: - use INTF_DP for both DP and new eDP interfaces - remove INTF_EDP usage from the dpu1 driver- add a note that INTF_EDP corresponds to older eDP blocks (found on 8x74/8x84)
-- With best wishes Dmitry
