On 2023-04-28 15:36:46, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
> Since GC and IGC masks have now been dropped DSPP_MSM8998_MASK
> is same as DSPP_SC7180_MASK. Since DSPP_SC7180_MASK is used more
is *the* same
> than DSPP_MSM8998_MASK, lets drop the latter.
>
> Signed-off-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhin...@quicinc.com>
> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.barysh...@linaro.org>
> Reviewed-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suij...@somainline.org>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_3_0_msm8998.h | 4 ++--
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c | 2 --
> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_3_0_msm8998.h
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_3_0_msm8998.h
> index bdcd554fc8a8..a4679f72a262 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_3_0_msm8998.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_3_0_msm8998.h
> @@ -127,9 +127,9 @@ static const struct dpu_pingpong_cfg msm8998_pp[] = {
> };
>
> static const struct dpu_dspp_cfg msm8998_dspp[] = {
> - DSPP_BLK("dspp_0", DSPP_0, 0x54000, DSPP_MSM8998_MASK,
> + DSPP_BLK("dspp_0", DSPP_0, 0x54000, DSPP_SC7180_MASK,
> &msm8998_dspp_sblk),
> - DSPP_BLK("dspp_1", DSPP_1, 0x56000, DSPP_MSM8998_MASK,
> + DSPP_BLK("dspp_1", DSPP_1, 0x56000, DSPP_SC7180_MASK,
> &msm8998_dspp_sblk),
> };
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c
> index 791a6fc8bdbf..efd466f6122b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c
> @@ -91,8 +91,6 @@
>
> #define MERGE_3D_SM8150_MASK (0)
>
> -#define DSPP_MSM8998_MASK BIT(DPU_DSPP_PCC)
> -
> #define DSPP_SC7180_MASK BIT(DPU_DSPP_PCC)
Should we add preliminary parenthesis around this?
- Marijn
>
> #define INTF_SDM845_MASK (0)
> --
> 2.40.1
>
