On 05/04/2023 04:00, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 4/4/2023 5:43 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 05/04/2023 03:39, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 4/4/2023 5:33 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 05/04/2023 01:12, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 4/4/2023 6:05 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On sm8450 platform the
On 4/4/2023 5:43 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 05/04/2023 03:39, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 4/4/2023 5:33 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 05/04/2023 01:12, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 4/4/2023 6:05 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On sm8450 platform the CTL_0 doesn't differ from the rest of CTL
On 05/04/2023 03:39, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 4/4/2023 5:33 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 05/04/2023 01:12, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 4/4/2023 6:05 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On sm8450 platform the CTL_0 doesn't differ from the rest of CTL
blocks,
so switch it to CTL_SC7280_MASK too.
On 4/4/2023 5:33 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 05/04/2023 01:12, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 4/4/2023 6:05 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On sm8450 platform the CTL_0 doesn't differ from the rest of CTL blocks,
so switch it to CTL_SC7280_MASK too.
Some background: original commit 100d7ef6995d
On 05/04/2023 01:12, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 4/4/2023 6:05 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On sm8450 platform the CTL_0 doesn't differ from the rest of CTL blocks,
so switch it to CTL_SC7280_MASK too.
Some background: original commit 100d7ef6995d ("drm/msm/dpu: add support
for SM8450") had all
On 4/4/2023 6:05 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On sm8450 platform the CTL_0 doesn't differ from the rest of CTL blocks,
so switch it to CTL_SC7280_MASK too.
Some background: original commit 100d7ef6995d ("drm/msm/dpu: add support
for SM8450") had all (relevant at that time) bit spelled
On sm8450 platform the CTL_0 doesn't differ from the rest of CTL blocks,
so switch it to CTL_SC7280_MASK too.
Some background: original commit 100d7ef6995d ("drm/msm/dpu: add support
for SM8450") had all (relevant at that time) bit spelled individually.
Then commit 0e91bcbb0016 ("drm/msm/dpu: Add
