On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 11:26:37AM -0800, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
>
>
> On 12/16/2024 12:20 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > According to the vendor devicetree on SM6150 LM_0 is paired with LM_2
> > rather than LM_1. Correct pairing indices.
> >
> > Fixes: cb2f9144693b ("drm/msm/dpu: Add SM6150 support")
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_3_sm6150.h | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_3_sm6150.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_3_sm6150.h
> > index 621a2140f675fa28b3a7fcd8573e59b306cd6832..81eb274cc7000a3b70b0f6650088ddcd24648eab 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_3_sm6150.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_3_sm6150.h
> > @@ -116,20 +116,20 @@ static const struct dpu_lm_cfg sm6150_lm[] = {
> > .sblk = &sdm845_lm_sblk,
> > .pingpong = PINGPONG_0,
> > .dspp = DSPP_0,
> > - .lm_pair = LM_1,
> > + .lm_pair = LM_2,
> > }, {
> > .name = "lm_1", .id = LM_1,
> > .base = 0x45000, .len = 0x320,
> > .features = MIXER_QCM2290_MASK,
> > .sblk = &sdm845_lm_sblk,
> > .pingpong = PINGPONG_1,
> > - .lm_pair = LM_0,
> > }, {
> > .name = "lm_2", .id = LM_2,
> > .base = 0x46000, .len = 0x320,
> > .features = MIXER_QCM2290_MASK,
> > .sblk = &sdm845_lm_sblk,
> > .pingpong = PINGPONG_2,
> > + .lm_pair = LM_0,
> > },
> > };
>
> Have a basic question here. We check the peer only if we will have more than
> one LM needed in the topology but sm6150 does not have 3dmux, so the number
> of LMs will not go beyond one.
>
> 318 /* Valid primary mixer found, find matching peers */
> 319 if (lm_count < reqs->topology.num_lm) {
>
> It seems like this fix will be unused or does not really matter.
>
> Downstream has a different implementation for lm_pair, its used even to
> decide the LM pair for CWB mux. Upstream has a simpler implementation of
> just doing that in the code of using ODD LMs for ODD CWB muxes and even LMs
> for even CWB muxes. So fix is okay but not needed.
So which topology is supposed to work with LM_0 / LM_2 pair?
I'd still prefer to land the fix for the sake of catalog having the
correct data.
>
> >
> > ---
> > base-commit: a3d570eace66b4016f2692a6f1045742ee70c6b1
> > change-id: 20241216-dpu-fix-sm6150-17f0739f8fe0
> >
> > Best regards,
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
