On 2023-04-25 09:47:30, Abhinav Kumar wrote: > > > On 4/25/2023 9:33 AM, Marijn Suijten wrote: > > On 2023-04-25 09:18:58, Abhinav Kumar wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 4/24/2023 11:54 PM, Marijn Suijten wrote: > >>> On 2023-04-24 16:09:45, Abhinav Kumar wrote: > >>> <snip> > >>>>>> dither block should be present on many other chipsets too but looks like > >>>>>> on sm8550 was enabling it. Not sure how it was validated there. But we > >>>>>> are enabling dither, even other chipsets have this block. > >>>>> > >>>>> Correct, they all seem to have it starting at sdm845. My patch message > >>>>> seems to lack the word "exclusively" as the PP on sm8550 appears to > >>>>> exclusively contain a DITHER subblock (unless other blocks are available > >>>>> that simply aren't supported within this driver yet) and no other > >>>>> registers. Hence this aptly named macro exist to emit just the feature > >>>>> bitflag for that and a .len of zero. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I think after the TE blocks were moved to INTF, dither is the only > >>>> sub-block for all Ping-Pongs not just in sm8550. > >>> > >>> So you are asking / leaving context to make all >= 5.0.0 pingpong blocks > >>> use this macro with only a single DITHER sblk in PP? > >>> > >>> As far as I recall SM8550 is the first SoC to use zero registers in PP, > >>> which is specifically what this macro takes care of too. Then, there > >>> are only a few SoCs downstream still (erroneously?) referencing TE2 as > >>> the only other sub-blk, those SoCs still use sdm845_pp_sblk_te. > >>> > >> > >> So, what I didnt follow is why should sm8450 use PP_BLK_TE Vs sm8550 > >> should use PP_BLK_DIPHER? > >> > >> Atleast for those two, both should be using PP_BLK_DIPHER. > >> > >> Thats what I was trying to note here. > >> > >> This isnt even right as there is no PP_BLK_TE in sm8450. > > > > SM8450 doesn't use PP_BLK_TE (TE2) anymore since the second patch in > > this series. If you think it should use the DITHER (not DIPHER!) macro > > instead of the regular PP_BLK with a size of 0xd4, we can do that in > > another patch as that's not strictly related to this series. > > > > Yes, thanks for pointing the TE2 was removed in the prev patch of this > series for sm8450. I was just focusing too much on this patch. > > And Yes, I think we should use the DIPHER ..... oh sorry .... DITHER ;) > > Yes, it can go as a different series, like I already wrote many times in > this. Thanks, that'd be great. I wasn't sure at this point what you wanted to be changed here, after commenting on a typo fix rather than i.e. patch 2 that deals with the TE2 sub-block of PP :) > But atleast now, someone will remember to do it. > > > Note that that's the only difference between these macros. The size > > becomes 0 but the .features mask is the same (SM8450 uses > > PINGPONG_SM8150_MASK). > > > > These patches are anyway already distracting from my series, but were > > easier to do in one go as I was touching the PP and INTF catalog blocks > > regardless. > > > > While at it, perhaps we should check if the version and offset for the > > DITHER block are correct? SM8450 uses SDM845 sblk definitions. > > > > Yes I already checked. the version and offset of dither are same between > sm8450 and sm8550. Thanks for checking, so then sm8450 is wrong on multiple occasions. Let's check all other SoCs that use sdm845_pp_sblk whether they should have used sc7280_pp_sblk instead. - Marijn
