On 10/6/2023 6:14 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
As we have dropped the variadic parts of SSPP sub-blocks declarations,
deduplicate them now, reducing memory cruft.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_3_0_msm8998.h | 16 +--
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_4_0_sdm845.h | 16 +--
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_0_sm8150.h | 16 +--
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_1_sc8180x.h | 16 +--
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_4_sm6125.h | 6 +-
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_0_sm8250.h | 16 +--
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_2_sc7180.h | 8 +-
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_3_sm6115.h | 4 +-
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_4_sm6350.h | 8 +-
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_5_qcm2290.h | 4 +-
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_9_sm6375.h | 4 +-
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_7_0_sm8350.h | 16 +--
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_7_2_sc7280.h | 8 +-
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_0_sc8280xp.h | 16 +--
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_1_sm8450.h | 16 +--
.../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_9_0_sm8550.h | 20 ++--
.../gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c | 97 +++++--------------
17 files changed, 120 insertions(+), 167 deletions(-)
<snip>
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_9_0_sm8550.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_9_0_sm8550.h
index e60427f54b27..860feb9c54e6 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_9_0_sm8550.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_9_0_sm8550.h
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ static const struct dpu_sspp_cfg sm8550_sspp[] = {
.name = "sspp_0", .id = SSPP_VIG0,
.base = 0x4000, .len = 0x344,
.features = VIG_SC7180_MASK,
- .sblk = &sm8550_vig_sblk_0,
+ .sblk = &dpu_vig_sblk_qseed3_3_2,
Some of this naming doesnt sound right to me. What I had suggested was
just dpu_vig_sblk_scaler_x_y but what is used is dpu_vig_sblk_qseedx_x_y
This is not correct because technically sm8550 was qseed4 as its scaler
version is > 0x3000
So this adds some discrepancy in the naming.
