linux-kernel - Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH] drm/msm/dpu: re-introduce dpu core revision to the catalog

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0af4df3d-8048-98cd-6c91-7cd553f4f65f@quicinc.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 May 2023 20:05:52 -0700
From:   Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>
To:     Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
CC:     <freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        <quic_khsieh@...cinc.com>, Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, <quic_jesszhan@...cinc.com>,
        Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>
Subject: Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH] drm/msm/dpu: re-introduce dpu core revision
 to the catalog



On 5/30/2023 7:53 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2023 at 03:54, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com> wrote:
>>
>> With [1] dpu core revision was dropped in favor of using the
>> compatible string from the device tree to select the dpu catalog
>> being used in the device.
>>
>> This approach works well however also necessitates adding catalog
>> entries for small register level details as dpu capabilities and/or
>> features bloating the catalog unnecessarily. Examples include but
>> are not limited to data_compress, interrupt register set, widebus etc.
>>
>> Introduce the dpu core revision back as an entry to the catalog so that
>> we can just use dpu revision checks and enable those bits which
>> should be enabled unconditionally and not controlled by a catalog
>> and also simplify the changes to do something like:
>>
>> if (dpu_core_revision > xxxxx && dpu_core_revision < xxxxx)
>>          enable the bit;
>>
>> Also, add some of the useful macros back to be able to use dpu core
>> revision effectively.
>>
>> [1]: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/530891/?series=113910&rev=4
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>
>> ---
>>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_3_0_msm8998.h   |  1 +
>>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_4_0_sdm845.h    |  1 +
>>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_0_sm8150.h    |  1 +
>>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_1_sc8180x.h   |  1 +
>>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_0_sm8250.h    |  1 +
>>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_2_sc7180.h    |  1 +
>>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_3_sm6115.h    |  1 +
>>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_5_qcm2290.h   |  1 +
>>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_7_0_sm8350.h    |  1 +
>>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_7_2_sc7280.h    |  1 +
>>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_0_sc8280xp.h  |  1 +
>>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_1_sm8450.h    |  1 +
>>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_9_0_sm8550.h    |  1 +
>>   .../gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h    | 31 ++++++++++++++++++-
>>   14 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
> 
> [skipped catalog changes]
> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h
>> index 677048cc3b7d..cc4aa75a1219 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h
>> @@ -19,6 +19,33 @@
>>    */
>>   #define MAX_BLOCKS    12
>>
>> +#define DPU_HW_VER(MAJOR, MINOR, STEP)\
>> +                 ((((unsigned int)MAJOR & 0xF) << 28) |\
>> +                 ((MINOR & 0xFFF) << 16) |\
>> +                 (STEP & 0xFFFF))
>> +
>> +#define DPU_HW_MAJOR(rev)((rev) >> 28)
>> +#define DPU_HW_MINOR(rev)(((rev) >> 16) & 0xFFF)
>> +#define DPU_HW_STEP(rev)((rev) & 0xFFFF)
>> +#define DPU_HW_MAJOR_MINOR(rev)((rev) >> 16)
>> +
>> +#define IS_DPU_MAJOR_MINOR_SAME(rev1, rev2)   \
>> +(DPU_HW_MAJOR_MINOR((rev1)) == DPU_HW_MAJOR_MINOR((rev2)))
>> +
>> +#define DPU_HW_VER_300 DPU_HW_VER(3, 0, 0) /* 8998 v1.0 */
>> +#define DPU_HW_VER_400 DPU_HW_VER(4, 0, 0) /* sdm845 v1.0 */
>> +#define DPU_HW_VER_500 DPU_HW_VER(5, 0, 0) /* sm8150 v1.0 */
>> +#define DPU_HW_VER_510 DPU_HW_VER(5, 1, 1) /* sc8180 */
>> +#define DPU_HW_VER_600 DPU_HW_VER(6, 0, 0) /* sm8250 */
>> +#define DPU_HW_VER_620 DPU_HW_VER(6, 2, 0) /* sc7180 v1.0 */
>> +#define DPU_HW_VER_630 DPU_HW_VER(6, 3, 0) /* sm6115|sm4250 */
>> +#define DPU_HW_VER_650 DPU_HW_VER(6, 5, 0) /* qcm2290|sm4125 */
>> +#define DPU_HW_VER_700 DPU_HW_VER(7, 0, 0) /* sm8350 */
>> +#define DPU_HW_VER_720 DPU_HW_VER(7, 2, 0) /* sc7280 */
>> +#define DPU_HW_VER_800 DPU_HW_VER(8, 0, 0) /* sc8280xp */
>> +#define DPU_HW_VER_810 DPU_HW_VER(8, 1, 0) /* sm8450 */
>> +#define DPU_HW_VER_900 DPU_HW_VER(9, 0, 0) /* sm8550 */
> 
> Instead of having defines for all SoCs (which can quickly become
> unmanageable) and can cause merge conflicts, I'd suggest inlining all
> the defines into respective catalog files.
> 

Sure, that can be done.

> Also, I'm not sure that the "step" should be a part of the catalog. I
> know that this follows the hardware revision. However, please correct
> me if I'm wrong, different step levels are used for revisions of the
> same SoC. The original code that was reading the hw revision from the
> hardware register, listed both 5.0.0 and 5.0.1 for sm8150.
> 

This is one of the things i noticed while making this change.

Before the catalog rework, we used to handle even steps as we used to 
read that from the register and match it with the mdss_cfg handler. But 
after the rework, we dont handle steps anymore. Yes, you are right that 
different step levels are used for the revisions of the same SOC and so 
with that, i dont expect or atleast am not aware of DPU differences 
between steps but I am not able to rule it out.

So are you suggesting we drop step altogether and DPU_HW_VER() macro 
shall only handle major and minor versions? With the current chipsets I 
see, it should not make a difference . Its just that I am not sure if 
that will never happen.

>> +
>>   #define DPU_HW_BLK_NAME_LEN    16
>>
>>   #define MAX_IMG_WIDTH 0x3fff
>> @@ -769,7 +796,7 @@ struct dpu_perf_cfg {
>>   /**
>>    * struct dpu_mdss_cfg - information of MDSS HW
>>    * This is the main catalog data structure representing
>> - * this HW version. Contains number of instances,
>> + * this HW version. Contains dpu core revision, number of instances,
>>    * register offsets, capabilities of the all MDSS HW sub-blocks.
>>    *
>>    * @dma_formats        Supported formats for dma pipe
>> @@ -778,6 +805,8 @@ struct dpu_perf_cfg {
>>    * @mdss_irqs:         Bitmap with the irqs supported by the target
>>    */
>>   struct dpu_mdss_cfg {
>> +       u32 core_rev;
>> +
>>          const struct dpu_caps *caps;
>>
>>          const struct dpu_ubwc_cfg *ubwc;
>> --
>> 2.40.1
>>
> 
>