linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] drm/mxsfb: use bus_format to determine LCD bus width

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e26fed9a-7c59-15dc-8e5d-7e63431455e7@denx.de>
Date:   Wed, 14 Dec 2016 22:28:04 +0100
From:   Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>
To:     Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
Cc:     airlied@...ux.ie, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/mxsfb: use bus_format to determine LCD bus width

On 12/14/2016 09:51 PM, Stefan Agner wrote:
> On 2016-12-13 23:52, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 12/14/2016 02:02 AM, Stefan Agner wrote:
>>> The LCD bus width does not need to align with the pixel format. The
>>> LCDIF controller automatically converts between pixel formats and
>>> bus width by padding or dropping LSBs.
>>>
>>> The DRM subsystem has the notion of bus_format which allows to
>>> determine what bus_formats are supported by the display. Choose the
>>> first available or fallback to 24 bit if none are available.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
>>
>> Minor nits below.
>>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> - Use seperate function mxsfb_set_bus_fmt
>>>
>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/mxsfb/mxsfb_crtc.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/mxsfb/mxsfb_regs.h |  1 +
>>>  2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/mxsfb/mxsfb_crtc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/mxsfb/mxsfb_crtc.c
>>> index 4bcc8a3..956769b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/mxsfb/mxsfb_crtc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/mxsfb/mxsfb_crtc.c
>>> @@ -65,13 +65,11 @@ static int mxsfb_set_pixel_fmt(struct mxsfb_drm_private *mxsfb)
>>>  	switch (format) {
>>>  	case DRM_FORMAT_RGB565:
>>>  		dev_dbg(drm->dev, "Setting up RGB565 mode\n");
>>> -		ctrl |= CTRL_SET_BUS_WIDTH(STMLCDIF_16BIT);
>>>  		ctrl |= CTRL_SET_WORD_LENGTH(0);
>>>  		ctrl1 |= CTRL1_SET_BYTE_PACKAGING(0xf);
>>>  		break;
>>>  	case DRM_FORMAT_XRGB8888:
>>>  		dev_dbg(drm->dev, "Setting up XRGB8888 mode\n");
>>> -		ctrl |= CTRL_SET_BUS_WIDTH(STMLCDIF_24BIT);
>>>  		ctrl |= CTRL_SET_WORD_LENGTH(3);
>>>  		/* Do not use packed pixels = one pixel per word instead. */
>>>  		ctrl1 |= CTRL1_SET_BYTE_PACKAGING(0x7);
>>> @@ -87,6 +85,35 @@ static int mxsfb_set_pixel_fmt(struct mxsfb_drm_private *mxsfb)
>>>  	return 0;
>>>  }
>>>
>>> +static void mxsfb_set_bus_fmt(struct mxsfb_drm_private *mxsfb)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct drm_crtc *crtc = &mxsfb->pipe.crtc;
>>> +	struct drm_device *drm = crtc->dev;
>>> +	u32 bus_format = MEDIA_BUS_FMT_RGB888_1X24;
>>> +	u32 reg;
>>             ^^^ this is uninitialized
>>
>>> +	writel(CTRL_BUS_WIDTH_MASK, mxsfb->base + LCDC_CTRL + REG_CLR);
>>> +
>>> +	if (mxsfb->connector.display_info.num_bus_formats)
>>> +		bus_format = mxsfb->connector.display_info.bus_formats[0];
>>> +
>>> +	switch (bus_format) {
>>> +	case MEDIA_BUS_FMT_RGB565_1X16:
>>> +		reg |= CTRL_SET_BUS_WIDTH(STMLCDIF_16BIT);
>>                 ^^^
>>                 here you're doing operation on uninited value.
>>
>>> +		break;
>>> +	case MEDIA_BUS_FMT_RGB666_1X18:
>>> +		reg |= CTRL_SET_BUS_WIDTH(STMLCDIF_18BIT);
>>> +		break;
>>> +	case MEDIA_BUS_FMT_RGB888_1X24:
>>> +		reg |= CTRL_SET_BUS_WIDTH(STMLCDIF_24BIT);
>>> +		break;
>>> +	default:
>>> +		dev_err(drm->dev, "Unknown media bus format %d\n", bus_format);
>>> +		break;
>>> +	}
>>> +	writel(reg, mxsfb->base + LCDC_CTRL + REG_SET);
>>
>> What I was thinking might be better is to save the calculated LCD_CRTC
>> value in mxsfb_drm_private , but maybe R-M-W is good enough after all?
> 
> Yeah I see what you are saying, however I would prefer to not cache if
> there is no real reason to...

OK

> It is now a write to the clear and one write to the set variant of the
> register, not sure if that counts as "two writes".

It's two writel() calls, it does.

>> Two writes are IMO not great because it unnecessarily reconfigures the
>> controller twice.
> 
> Does that matter? At this point, the RUN bit is guaranteed not to be
> set... 

It's probably a matter of taste, although I'd be more comfortable with
RMW here.

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut