[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a068ae00-fca0-4c53-9b59-a855caca12a9@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 17:52:33 +0200
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>,
Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
Akhil P Oommen <quic_akhilpo@...cinc.com>, Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFT v2 12/15] drm/msm/a6xx: Drop cfg->ubwc_swizzle
override
On 5/14/25 10:32 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 05:10:32PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
>>
>> On A663 (SA8775P) the value matches exactly.
>>
>> On A610, the value matches on SM6115, but is different on SM6125. That
>> turns out not to be a problem, as the bits that differ aren't even
>> interpreted.
>
> We also don't set swizzle for a lot of UBWC 1.0 targets (as MDSS wasn't
> programming those). Should we fix all of them to use 6 by default? Or 7?
I don't think any default value is a good idea - this is the sort of
programming error you track down 4 years after you go bald looking
for it
Konrad
Powered by blists - more mailing lists