On 19-10-21, 18:52, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 18:30, Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 14-10-21, 17:11, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > On 07/10/2021 10:08, Vinod Koul wrote:
> >
> > > > +static int _dpu_rm_reserve_dsc(struct dpu_rm *rm,
> > > > + struct dpu_global_state *global_state,
> > > > + struct drm_encoder *enc)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct msm_drm_private *priv;
> > > > +
> > > > + priv = enc->dev->dev_private;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!priv)
> > > > + return -EIO;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* check if DSC is supported */
> > > > + if (!priv->dsc)
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* check if DSC 0 & 1 and allocated or not */
> > > > + if (global_state->dsc_to_enc_id[0] || global_state->dsc_to_enc_id[1]) {
> > > > + DPU_ERROR("DSC 0|1 is already allocated\n");
> > > > + return -EIO;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + global_state->dsc_to_enc_id[0] = enc->base.id;
> > > > + global_state->dsc_to_enc_id[1] = enc->base.id;
> > >
> > > Still hardcoding DSC_0 and DSC_1.
> >
> > Yes!
> >
> > > Could you please add num_dsc to the topology and allocate the requested
> > > amount of DSC blocks? Otherwise this would break for the DSI + DP case.
> >
> > It wont as we check for dsc and dont proceed, so it cant make an impact
> > in non dsc case.
> >
> > Nevertheless I agree with you, so I am making it based on dsc defined in
> > topology. Do we need additional field for num_dsc in topology, num_enc
> > should be it, right?
>
> I'd vote for the separate num_dsc.
Okay will update... will move up topology patch up in the order for that
as well
--
~Vinod
