On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 05:49:43PM +0800, Jun Nie wrote:
> Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> 于2025年1月16日周四 16:00写道：
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 03:25:59PM +0800, Jun Nie wrote:
> > > Store pipes in array with removing dedicated r_pipe. There are
> > > 2 pipes in a drm plane at most currently, while 4 pipes are
> > > required for quad-pipe case. Generalize the handling to pipe pair
> > > and ease handling to another pipe pair later.
> >
> > With the first sentence being moved to the end of the commit message:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Minor issues below, please address them in the next version.
> >
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jun Nie <jun.nie@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_crtc.c | 35 +++----
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.c | 167 +++++++++++++++++-------------
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.h | 12 +--
> > > 3 files changed, 112 insertions(+), 102 deletions(-)
> >
> > > @@ -853,6 +855,9 @@ static int dpu_plane_atomic_check_nosspp(struct drm_plane *plane,
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + /* move the assignment here, to ease handling to another pairs later */
> >
> > Is it a TODO comment? It reads like an order.
> >
> > > + pipe_cfg = &pstate->pipe_cfg[0];
> > > + r_pipe_cfg = &pstate->pipe_cfg[1];
> > > /* state->src is 16.16, src_rect is not */
> > > drm_rect_fp_to_int(&pipe_cfg->src_rect, &new_plane_state->src);
> > >
> >
> > > @@ -1387,17 +1394,28 @@ static void _dpu_plane_atomic_disable(struct drm_plane *plane)
> > > {
> > > struct drm_plane_state *state = plane->state;
> > > struct dpu_plane_state *pstate = to_dpu_plane_state(state);
> > > - struct dpu_sw_pipe *r_pipe = &pstate->r_pipe;
> > > + struct dpu_sw_pipe *pipe;
> > > + int i;
> > >
> > > - trace_dpu_plane_disable(DRMID(plane), false,
> > > - pstate->pipe.multirect_mode);
> > > + for (i = 0; i < PIPES_PER_STAGE; i += 1) {
> > > + pipe = &pstate->pipe[i];
> > > + if (!pipe->sspp)
> > > + continue;
> > >
> > > - if (r_pipe->sspp) {
> > > - r_pipe->multirect_index = DPU_SSPP_RECT_SOLO;
> > > - r_pipe->multirect_mode = DPU_SSPP_MULTIRECT_NONE;
> > > + trace_dpu_plane_disable(DRMID(plane), false,
> > > + pstate->pipe[i].multirect_mode);
> > >
> > > - if (r_pipe->sspp->ops.setup_multirect)
> > > - r_pipe->sspp->ops.setup_multirect(r_pipe);
> > > + /*
> > > + * clear multirect for the right pipe so that the SSPP
> > > + * can be further reused in the solo mode
> > > + */
> > > + if (pipe->sspp && i == 1) {
> >
> > Wouldn't it be better to `&& i % 2 != 0`? Then, I think, this condition
> > can stay even in quad-pipe case.
>
> If all pipes are in solo mode, there is no need to test ' i %2 != 0 '. Below
> test shall be better, right?
> if (pipe->sspp && pipe->multirect_index == DPU_SSPP_RECT_1)
Again, this will not work as expected for the SSPP-sharing case as it
will then clear pipe 0 for the sharing planes.
Let me think a bit... This code resets multirect for right pipes. It was
added back in 4.9 to fix the case of 'master' aka RECT_0 not being a
part of the atomic update. However I don't think this is applicable
anymore. We use z_pos normalization, so all planes for a CRTC are added
to the commit. Please drop this piece in a separate commit.
>
> >
> > > + pipe->multirect_index = DPU_SSPP_RECT_SOLO;
> > > + pipe->multirect_mode = DPU_SSPP_MULTIRECT_NONE;
> > > +
> > > + if (pipe->sspp->ops.setup_multirect)
> > > + pipe->sspp->ops.setup_multirect(pipe);
> > > + }
> > > }
> > >
> > > pstate->pending = true;
> >
> > --
> > With best wishes
> > Dmitry
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
