On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 01:58:06 +0200
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 12:41:02AM +0100, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > On 2025-02-12 15:03:46, James A. MacInnes wrote:
> > > SDM845 DPU hardware is rev 4.0.0 per hardware documents.
> > > Original patch to enable wide_bus operation did not take into
> > > account the SDM845 and it got carried over by accident.
> > >
> > > - Incorrect setting caused inoperable DisplayPort.
> > > - Corrected by separating SDM845 into its own descriptor.
> >
> > If anything I'd have appreciated to see our conversation in v1
> > pasted here verbatim which is of the right verbosity to explain
> > this. I can't do much with a list of two items.
> >
> > I don't have a clearer way of explaining what all I find confusing
> > about this description, so let me propose what I would have written
> > if this was my patch instead:
> >
> > When widebus was enabled for DisplayPort in commit
> > c7c412202623 ("drm/msm/dp: enable widebus on all relevant
> > chipsets") it was clarified that it is only supported on DPU 5.0.0
> > onwards which includes SC7180 on DPU revision 6.2. However, this
> > patch missed that the description structure for SC7180 is also
> > reused for SDM845 (because of identical io_start address) which is
> > only DPU 4.0.0, leading to a wrongly enbled widebus feature and
> > corruption on that platform.
> >
> > Create a separate msm_dp_desc_sdm845 structure for this SoC
> > compatible, with the wide_bus_supported flag turned off.
> >
> > Note that no other DisplayPort compatibles currently exist
> > for SoCs older than DPU 4.0.0 besides SDM845.
>
> With more or less similar commit message:
>
>
> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> >
> > Hope I'm not considered being too picky. I first sketch **how**
> > the original patch created a problem, then explain how this patch
> > is intending to fix it, and finally describe that we went a step
> > further and ensured no other SoCs are suffering from a similar
> > problem.
> >
> > - Marijn
> >
Not too picky at all. I will use your text. I apologize as I had changed
the cover instead of the patch. I will do my best to balance too many
words and not enough.
Would it be appropriate to split this patch and the other into separate
submissions?
Thank you again.
- James
> > >
> > > Fixes: c7c412202623 ("drm/msm/dp: enable widebus on all relevant
> > > chipsets") Signed-off-by: James A. MacInnes
> > > <james.a.macinnes@xxxxxxxxx> ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c | 7 ++++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c index
> > > aff51bb973eb..e30cccd63910 100644 ---
> > > a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c +++
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c @@ -126,6 +126,11 @@ static
> > > const struct msm_dp_desc msm_dp_desc_sa8775p[] = { {}
> > > };
> > >
> > > +static const struct msm_dp_desc msm_dp_desc_sdm845[] = {
> > > + { .io_start = 0x0ae90000, .id = MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_0 },
> > > + {}
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > static const struct msm_dp_desc msm_dp_desc_sc7180[] = {
> > > { .io_start = 0x0ae90000, .id = MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_0,
> > > .wide_bus_supported = true }, {}
> > > @@ -178,7 +183,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id
> > > msm_dp_dt_match[] = { { .compatible = "qcom,sc8180x-edp", .data =
> > > &msm_dp_desc_sc8180x }, { .compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-dp", .data
> > > = &msm_dp_desc_sc8280xp }, { .compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-edp",
> > > .data = &msm_dp_desc_sc8280xp },
> > > - { .compatible = "qcom,sdm845-dp", .data =
> > > &msm_dp_desc_sc7180 },
> > > + { .compatible = "qcom,sdm845-dp", .data =
> > > &msm_dp_desc_sdm845 }, { .compatible = "qcom,sm8350-dp", .data =
> > > &msm_dp_desc_sc7180 }, { .compatible = "qcom,sm8650-dp", .data =
> > > &msm_dp_desc_sm8650 }, { .compatible = "qcom,x1e80100-dp", .data
> > > = &msm_dp_desc_x1e80100 },
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.43.0
> > >
>
