On 2/4/2023 2:43 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 04/02/2023 07:10, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 2/3/2023 8:10 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 04/02/2023 04:43, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 2/3/2023 6:29 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 04/02/2023 01:35, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 2/3/2023 10:21 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
Downstream driver uses dpu->caps->smart_dma_rev to update
sspp->cap->features with the bit corresponding to the supported
SmartDMA
version. Upstream driver does not do this, resulting in SSPP
subdriver
not enbaling setup_multirect callback. Add corresponding SmartDMA
SSPP
feature bits to dpu hw catalog.
While reviewing this patch, I had a first hand experience of how
we are reusing SSPP bitmasks for so many chipsets but I think
overall you got them right here :)
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.barysh...@linaro.org>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c | 10 +++++++---
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
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 cf053e8f081e..fc818b0273e7 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c
@@ -21,13 +21,16 @@
(VIG_MASK | BIT(DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED3))
#define VIG_SDM845_MASK \
- (VIG_MASK | BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL) |
BIT(DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED3))
+ (VIG_MASK | BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL) |
BIT(DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED3) |\
+ BIT(DPU_SSPP_SMART_DMA_V2))
#define VIG_SC7180_MASK \
- (VIG_MASK | BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL) |
BIT(DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED4))
+ (VIG_MASK | BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL) |
BIT(DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED4) |\
+ BIT(DPU_SSPP_SMART_DMA_V2))
#define VIG_SM8250_MASK \
- (VIG_MASK | BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL) |
BIT(DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED3LITE))
+ (VIG_MASK | BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL) |
BIT(DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED3LITE) |\
+ BIT(DPU_SSPP_SMART_DMA_V2))
#define VIG_QCM2290_MASK (VIG_MASK | BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL))
@@ -42,6 +45,7 @@
#define DMA_SDM845_MASK \
(BIT(DPU_SSPP_SRC) | BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS) |
BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL) |\
BIT(DPU_SSPP_TS_PREFILL) | BIT(DPU_SSPP_TS_PREFILL_REC1) |\
+ BIT(DPU_SSPP_SMART_DMA_V2) |\
BIT(DPU_SSPP_CDP) | BIT(DPU_SSPP_EXCL_RECT))
#define DMA_CURSOR_SDM845_MASK \
VIG_SDM845_MASK and DMA_SDM845_MASK are used for many other
chipsets like 8250, 8450, 8550.
At the moment, for visual validation of this series, I only have
sc7180/sc7280. We are leaving the rest for CI.
Was that an intentional approach?
If so, we will need tested-by tags from folks having
8350/8450/8550/sc8280x,qcm2290?
I am only owning the visual validation on sc7280 atm.
I'm not quite sure what is your intent here. Are there any SoCs
after 845 that do not have SmartDMA 2.5? Or do you propose to
enable SmartDMA only for the chipsets that we can visually test?
That sounds strange.
Yes I was thinking to enable smartDMA at the moment on chipsets
which we can validate visually that display comes up. But I am not
sure if thats entirely practical.
But the intent was I just want to make sure basic display does come
up with smartDMA enabled if we are enabling it for all chipsets.
I don't think it is practical or logical. We don't require validating
other changes on all possible chipsets, so what is so different with
this one?
Thats because with smartDMA if the programming of stages goes wrong we
could potentially just see a blank screen. Its not about other
changes, this change in particular controls enabling a feature.
But thats just my thought. I am not going to request to ensure this or
block this for this.
You can still have my
Reviewed-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhin...@quicinc.com>
But think of the validations that have to be done before we merge it.
The usual way: verify as much as feasible and let anybody else complain
during the development cycle.
Well, our perspective is to enable the feature on devices on which you
are able to test and not enable then wait for others to complain.
I did not say test all devices. My point was to enable smartDMA on
devices which we are able to test.
There are other examples of this, like inline rotation, writeback etc.
which are at the moment enabled only on devices which QC or others have
tested on.
So when i said my suggestion was not practical, yes because if you want
to go ahead with this change in the current form, you would have to
validate all the chipsets as you are enabling smartDMA on all of them.
If you enable smartDMA only on the chipsets you OR others can validate
and give Tested-by for like I was planning to do for sc7280, then I am
not sure why it doesnt sound logical.
But like I said, thats my perspective. I will let you decide as you
would know how confident you are with this getting enabled for all
chipsets upstream.
