Re: [PATCH v6 06/10] drm/msm/dpu: deduplicate some (most) of SSPP sub-blocks

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





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.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Sparc]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux