| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAA8EJpq9RPi0q8LBytW=E+H2WWX2T9ShQe6zzzCSCwn1t12FGA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2023 23:42:41 +0200
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>
Cc: freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>, quic_parellan@...cinc.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: [PATCH v2 05/16] drm/msm/dpu: add cdm blocks to sc7280 dpu_hw_catalog
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 23:32, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/11/2023 1:31 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 23:16, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/8/2023 3:19 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 07:07, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Add CDM blocks to the sc7280 dpu_hw_catalog to support
> >>>> YUV format output from writeback block.
> >>>>
> >>>> changes in v2:
> >>>> - remove explicit zero assignment for features
> >>>> - move sc7280_cdm to dpu_hw_catalog from the sc7280
> >>>> catalog file as its definition can be re-used
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> .../gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_7_2_sc7280.h | 1 +
> >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c | 10 ++++++++++
> >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h | 13 +++++++++++++
> >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_mdss.h | 5 +++++
> >>>> 4 files changed, 29 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_7_2_sc7280.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_7_2_sc7280.h
> >>>> index 209675de6742..19c2b7454796 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_7_2_sc7280.h
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_7_2_sc7280.h
> >>>> @@ -248,6 +248,7 @@ const struct dpu_mdss_cfg dpu_sc7280_cfg = {
> >>>> .mdss_ver = &sc7280_mdss_ver,
> >>>> .caps = &sc7280_dpu_caps,
> >>>> .mdp = &sc7280_mdp,
> >>>> + .cdm = &sc7280_cdm,
> >>>> .ctl_count = ARRAY_SIZE(sc7280_ctl),
> >>>> .ctl = sc7280_ctl,
> >>>> .sspp_count = ARRAY_SIZE(sc7280_sspp),
> >>>> 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 d52aae54bbd5..1be3156cde05 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c
> >>>> @@ -426,6 +426,16 @@ static const struct dpu_dsc_sub_blks dsc_sblk_1 = {
> >>>> .ctl = {.name = "ctl", .base = 0xF80, .len = 0x10},
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> +/*************************************************************
> >>>> + * CDM sub block config
> >>>
> >>> Nit: it is not a subblock config.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ack.
> >>
> >>>> + *************************************************************/
> >>>> +static const struct dpu_cdm_cfg sc7280_cdm = {
> >>>
> >>> I know that I have r-b'ed this patch. But then one thing occurred to
> >>> me. If this definition is common to all (or almost all) platforms, can
> >>> we just call it dpu_cdm or dpu_common_cdm?
> >>>
> >>>> + .name = "cdm_0",
> >>>> + .id = CDM_0,
> >>>> + .len = 0x228,
> >>>> + .base = 0x79200,
> >>>> +};
> >>
> >> hmmm .... almost common but not entirely ... msm8998's CDM has a shorter
> >> len of 0x224 :(
> >
> > Then sdm845_cdm?
> >
>
> That also has a shorter cdm length.
Could you please clarify. According to the downstream DT files all CDM
blocks up to (but not including) sm8550 had length 0x224. SM8550 and
SM8650 got qcom,sde-cdm-size = <0x220>. But I don't see any registers
after 0x204.
>
> BTW, sdm845 is not in this series. It will be part of RFT as we discussed.
>
> >>
> >>>> +
> >>>> /*************************************************************
> >>>> * VBIF sub blocks config
> >>>> *************************************************************/
> >>>> 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 e3c0d007481b..ba82ef4560a6 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h
> >>>> @@ -682,6 +682,17 @@ struct dpu_vbif_cfg {
> >>>> u32 memtype[MAX_XIN_COUNT];
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> +/**
> >>>> + * struct dpu_cdm_cfg - information of chroma down blocks
> >>>> + * @name string name for debug purposes
> >>>> + * @id enum identifying this block
> >>>> + * @base register offset of this block
> >>>> + * @features bit mask identifying sub-blocks/features
> >>>> + */
> >>>> +struct dpu_cdm_cfg {
> >>>> + DPU_HW_BLK_INFO;
> >>>> +};
> >>>> +
> >>>> /**
> >>>> * Define CDP use cases
> >>>> * @DPU_PERF_CDP_UDAGE_RT: real-time use cases
> >>>> @@ -805,6 +816,8 @@ struct dpu_mdss_cfg {
> >>>> u32 wb_count;
> >>>> const struct dpu_wb_cfg *wb;
> >>>>
> >>>> + const struct dpu_cdm_cfg *cdm;
> >>>> +
> >>>> u32 ad_count;
> >>>>
> >>>> u32 dspp_count;
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_mdss.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_mdss.h
> >>>> index a6702b2bfc68..f319c8232ea5 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_mdss.h
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_mdss.h
> >>>> @@ -185,6 +185,11 @@ enum dpu_dsc {
> >>>> DSC_MAX
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> +enum dpu_cdm {
> >>>> + CDM_0 = 1,
> >>>> + CDM_MAX
> >>>> +};
> >>>> +
> >>>> enum dpu_pingpong {
> >>>> PINGPONG_NONE,
> >>>> PINGPONG_0,
> >>>> --
> >>>> 2.40.1
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists