[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ee04bf79-5a47-4a91-9aa2-cf0b909c6dea@quicinc.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 14:46:09 -0800
From: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
CC: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>, Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
Marijn
Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
Robert Foss <rfoss@...nel.org>,
Neil
Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@...aro.org>,
Richard Acayan <mailingradian@...il.com>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
<dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] drm/msm/dpu: link DSPP_2/_3 blocks on SM8150
On 12/16/2024 2:21 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 01:11:35PM -0800, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/16/2024 12:27 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> Link DSPP_2 to the LM_2 and DSPP_3 to the LM_3 mixer blocks.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 05ae91d960fd ("drm/msm/dpu: enable DSPP support on SM8[12]50")
>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_0_sm8150.h | 2 ++
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>
>> Change looks fine
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>
>>
>> One question below (not tied to the change but arose due to it):
>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_0_sm8150.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_0_sm8150.h
>>> index 6ccfde82fecdb4e3612df161814b16f7af40ca5f..421afacb7248039abd9fb66bcb73b756ae0d640a 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_0_sm8150.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_0_sm8150.h
>>> @@ -164,6 +164,7 @@ static const struct dpu_lm_cfg sm8150_lm[] = {
>>> .sblk = &sdm845_lm_sblk,
>>> .lm_pair = LM_3,
>>> .pingpong = PINGPONG_2,
>>> + .dspp = DSPP_2,
>>> }, {
>>> .name = "lm_3", .id = LM_3,
>>> .base = 0x47000, .len = 0x320,
>>> @@ -171,6 +172,7 @@ static const struct dpu_lm_cfg sm8150_lm[] = {
>>> .sblk = &sdm845_lm_sblk,
>>> .lm_pair = LM_2,
>>> .pingpong = PINGPONG_3,
>>> + .dspp = DSPP_3,
>>> }, {
>>> .name = "lm_4", .id = LM_4,
>>> .base = 0x48000, .len = 0x320,
>>>
>>
>> the consumer of .dspp seems to be in the RM code which is used to map the
>> DSPP to encoder_id but is there really any case where lm_id != dspp_id ... I
>> guess I am missing the context of why DSPP id needs to be tracked as LMs and
>> DSPPs go together. Let me also check this part internally.
>
> For example check the SDM845, the LM_5 is tied to DSPP_3.
>
> LM | DSPP
> ---------
> 0 | 0
> 1 | 1
> 2 | 2
> 5 | 3
>
Ah ... yes ... seems like sdm845 is the only one having this anomaly.
Thanks for clarifying.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists