linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/rockchip: vop2: configure layers for vp3 on rk3588

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: <062d86ab-1518-4160-870c-3cd36228d055@cherry.de>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 14:57:03 +0200
From: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@...rry.de>
To: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
Cc: hjc@...k-chips.com, andy.yan@...k-chips.com,
 dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@...rry.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/rockchip: vop2: configure layers for vp3 on
 rk3588

Hi Heiko,

On 4/25/24 9:55 PM, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> From: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@...rry.de>
> 
> The rk3588 VOP2 has 4 video-ports, yet the driver currently only
> configures the first 3, as used on the rk3568.
> 

I'm wondering whether we should update the drawing at the top of the 
driver then?

> Add another block to configure the vp3 as well, if applicable.
> 
> Fixes: 5a028e8f062f ("drm/rockchip: vop2: Add support for rk3588")
> Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@...rry.de>
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>   drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.h |  1 +
>   2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.c
> index 523880a4e8e74..1a327a9ed7ee4 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.c
> @@ -2303,6 +2303,7 @@ static void vop2_setup_alpha(struct vop2_video_port *vp)
>   static void vop2_setup_layer_mixer(struct vop2_video_port *vp)
>   {
>   	struct vop2 *vop2 = vp->vop2;
> +	const struct vop2_data *vop2_data = vop2->data;
>   	struct drm_plane *plane;
>   	u32 layer_sel = 0;
>   	u32 port_sel;
> @@ -2344,6 +2345,17 @@ static void vop2_setup_layer_mixer(struct vop2_video_port *vp)
>   	else
>   		port_sel |= FIELD_PREP(RK3568_OVL_PORT_SET__PORT2_MUX, 8);
>   
> +	/* configure vp3 */
> +	if (vop2_data->soc_id == 3588) {

I think it'd be smarter to check against vop2->data->nr_vps >= 4; so 
that we don't need to maintain a list of SoCs that support a specific 
number of video ports.

> +		struct vop2_video_port *vp3 = &vop2->vps[3];

This is always possible because vps is statically allocated for 4 items, 
c.f. struct vop2_video_port vps[ROCKCHIP_MAX_CRTC]; so we don't 
necessarily need it in this specific location and can group it with the 
others. Cosmetic suggestion though.

Otherwise, the change itself makes sense to me, so:

Reviewed-by: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@...rry.de>

Thanks!
Quentin