[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <oexunzihzwxux6aitpfpgpljhn2lndzqwnx5ruu3nzsahd7gzm@ttr6fuya5ncu>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:24:24 +0100
From: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Danila Tikhonov <danila@...xyga.com>, neil.armstrong@...aro.org,
quic_jesszhan@...cinc.com, maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com, mripard@...nel.org,
tzimmermann@...e.de, airlied@...il.com, simona@...ll.ch, robh@...nel.org,
krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, andersson@...nel.org,
konradybcio@...nel.org, robdclark@...il.com, quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com,
dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org, sean@...rly.run, jonathan@...ek.ca, jun.nie@...aro.org,
fekz115@...il.com, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux@...nlining.org, ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] drm/msm/dsi: Allow all bpc values
On 2025-02-10 18:13:58, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 10.02.2025 6:10 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > On 8.02.2025 11:09 PM, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> >> On 2025-02-03 21:14:26, Danila Tikhonov wrote:
...
> >>> dsc->simple_422 = 0;
> >>> dsc->convert_rgb = 1;
> >>> dsc->vbr_enable = 0;
> >>
> >> This seems supicous on the dpu1 side, in the original DSC 1.1 (not 1.2) block in
> >> dpu_hw_dsc_config(), which has:
> >>
> >> data |= (dsc->line_buf_depth << 3);
> >> data |= (dsc->simple_422 << 2);
> >> data |= (dsc->convert_rgb << 1);
> >> data |= dsc->bits_per_component;
> >>
> >> The original value of `8` would overlap with the lowest bit of line_buf_depth
> >> (4th bit in `data`). Now, the 2nd bit which will take the value from
> >> convert_rgb, which is already set to 1 above, will overlap with the 2nd bit in
> >> your new bpc value of 10.
> >>
> >> Can you double-check that this code in DPU1 is actually valid? I assume you
> >> have tested this panel at least and it is working (worthy mention in the cover
> >> letter?), this just seems like yet another mistake in the original bindings
> >> (though the register always had a matching value with downstream on 8 BPC panels
> >> for me).
> >
> > It seems like the lowest bit should be set iff the input is 10bpc, the
> > current situation where our '8' bleeds into the following (correctly named
> > fields) is bad.
>
> See also
>
> https://github.com/Wikidepia/kernel_xiaomi_santoni-4.9/blob/master/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/sde/sde_hw_dsc.c#L67-L80
Correct, this is also what Dmitry already replied on Sunday and what I
formulated into a patch earlier today (now sent), which I hope you can ack.
- Marijn
>
> Konrad
Powered by blists - more mailing lists