On 26/02/2023 04:10, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 2/25/2023 4:06 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 26/02/2023 01:27, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
Hi Dmitry
On 2/25/2023 3:06 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 24/02/2023 22:51, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 2/13/2023 9:36 AM, neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 13/02/2023 12:16, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 13/02/2023 12:41, Neil Armstrong wrote:
On 12/02/2023 00:12, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
QSEED4 is a newer variant of QSEED3LITE, which should be used on
sm8550. Fix the DPU caps structure and used feature masks.
I found nowhere SM8550 uses Qseed4, on downstream DT, it's written:
qcom,sde-qseed-sw-lib-rev = "qseedv3lite";
qcom,sde-qseed-scalar-version = <0x3002>;
And then the techpack tells us starting from 0x3000 the v3lite is
v4:
https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/platform/vendor/opensource/display-drivers/-/blob/display-kernel.lnx.5.10.r8-rel/msm/sde/sde_hw_util.c#L59
https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/platform/vendor/opensource/display-drivers/-/blob/display-kernel.lnx.5.10.r8-rel/msm/sde/sde_hw_util.c#L102
OK then:
Reviewed-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx>
This little bit of confusion is because with downstream, the qseed
is a separate usermode library having its own revision. So the SW
lib version in this case is not exactly correlating with the scalar
HW revision.
Can you possibly spend some more words here? I see that
sde_hw_utils.c programs scalers slightly different depending on the
version of the scaler. At some point the SDE driver was reading the
register to determine the revision. Then it switched to the revision
specified in the DTS (which, as far as I understand, corresponds to
the HW register contents).
So, where does SW revision come into the play? (and which library
are we talking about?). Is the 'v3lite' an SW revision? Or is the
0x3002 an SW revision?
qcom,sde-qseed-sw-lib-rev is the SW library revision for libscale.
This is a proprietary library used to calculate the LUTs for the
qseed block. Its not used in the upstream version of the driver.
For upstream driver, the driver uses default settings for the LUTs
which work for most of the common use-cases we see.
Ack, thanks for the explanation. If default settings work, that's
good. When you wrote about the proprietary lib, I started wondering if
we loose anything (like worse quality of the images, etc).
You can refer the below property names, there are programmed by the
lib for the downstream driver.
3733 msm_property_install_range(
3734 &psde->property_info, "scaler_v2",
3735 0x0, 0, ~0, 0, PLANE_PROP_SCALER_V2);
3736 msm_property_install_blob(&psde->property_info,
3737 "lut_sep", 0,
3738 PLANE_PROP_SCALER_LUT_SEP);
No, 0x3002 is the HW revision of the qseed and thats why this change
is correct because the SW library name/rev doesnt exactly match the
qseed HW revision as its possible that even qseed3lite library can
support the QSEED4 HW.
So we should be going off qcom,sde-qseed-scalar-version and not
qcom,sde-qseed-sw-lib-rev.
Thanks!
So, we should further drop the v3lite/v4 from the scaler name/subblock
and use qseed3 everywhere. Correct?
No, even that wont be correct because as you pointed out anything we
need to handle < QSEED4 case differently from others over here
And 0x2004 are also programmed slightly differently, etc.
537 if (pdpu->pipe_hw->cap->features &
538 BIT(DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED4)) {
539 scale_cfg->preload_x[i] = DPU_QSEED4_DEFAULT_PRELOAD_H;
540 scale_cfg->preload_y[i] = DPU_QSEED4_DEFAULT_PRELOAD_V;
541 } else {
542 scale_cfg->preload_x[i] = DPU_QSEED3_DEFAULT_PRELOAD_H;
543 scale_cfg->preload_y[i] = DPU_QSEED3_DEFAULT_PRELOAD_V;
544 }
If we want to clean this up more accurately, we should add qseed_rev in
the dpu caps or rename qseed_type to that which will hold the 0x3xxx
value and then write a small util which would set the the bit correctly
based on the qseed rev (0x3xxxx value).
Please excuse me if I was not fully obvious here. I meant using QSEED3
and scaler rev.
Since upstream DPU only cares about the HW revision of the scaler,
we should be going off the qcom,sde-qseed-scalar-version.
This change LGTM,
Reviewed-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
