| 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: <aUECnz+INNuLjHR6@yuanjiey.ap.qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2025 14:56:31 +0800
From: yuanjiey <yuanjie.yang@....qualcomm.com>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: robin.clark@....qualcomm.com, lumag@...nel.org, abhinav.kumar@...ux.dev,
jesszhan0024@...il.com, sean@...rly.run, marijn.suijten@...ainline.org,
airlied@...il.com, simona@...ll.ch, maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com,
mripard@...nel.org, tzimmermann@...e.de, robh@...nel.org,
krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, neil.armstrong@...aro.org,
yongxing.mou@....qualcomm.com, konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tingwei.zhang@....qualcomm.com,
aiqun.yu@....qualcomm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/11] drm/msm/dpu: Refactor SSPP to compatible DPU
13.0.0
On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 10:08:22PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 04:38:53PM +0800, yuanjie yang wrote:
> > From: Yuanjie Yang <yuanjie.yang@....qualcomm.com>
> >
> > DPU version 13.0.0 introduces structural changes including
> > register additions, removals, and relocations.
> >
> > Refactor SSPP-related code to be compatible with DPU 13.0.0
> > modifications.
> >
> > Co-developed-by: Yongxing Mou <yongxing.mou@....qualcomm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Yongxing Mou <yongxing.mou@....qualcomm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Yuanjie Yang <yuanjie.yang@....qualcomm.com>
> > ---
>
> We've fixed the order of the interrupts patch. Now you are adding SSPP
> customization for 13.x _after_ adding the first 13.x support. Is that
> supposed to work?
Yes, will reorganize order.
> > .../gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h | 15 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_sspp.c | 155 ++++++++++--------
> > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_sspp.h | 52 ++++++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_util.c | 18 ++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_util.h | 3 +
> > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_wb.c | 17 +-
> > 6 files changed, 191 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h
> > switch (ctx->ubwc->ubwc_enc_version) {
> > case UBWC_1_0:
> > fast_clear = fmt->alpha_enable ? BIT(31) : 0;
> > - DPU_REG_WRITE(c, SSPP_UBWC_STATIC_CTRL,
> > - fast_clear | (ctx->ubwc->ubwc_swizzle & 0x1) |
> > - BIT(8) |
> > - (ctx->ubwc->highest_bank_bit << 4));
> > + DPU_REG_WRITE(c, ubwc_ctrl_off,
> > + fast_clear | (ctx->ubwc->ubwc_swizzle & 0x1) |
> > + BIT(8) |
> > + (ctx->ubwc->highest_bank_bit << 4));
>
> I have asked to drop unrelated changes. You didn't. Why? You are
> changing whitespaces for no reason. It's just a noise which hides the
> actual change here.
here ubwc reg layout change in DPU 13.
ubwc_ctrl_off
veriosn < 13
reg: SSPP_UBWC_STATIC_CTRL
verison >= 13
reg: SSPP_REC_UBWC_STATIC_CTRL
So I do some fix.
> > break;
> > case UBWC_2_0:
> > fast_clear = fmt->alpha_enable ? BIT(31) : 0;
> > - DPU_REG_WRITE(c, SSPP_UBWC_STATIC_CTRL,
> > - fast_clear | (ctx->ubwc->ubwc_swizzle) |
> > - (ctx->ubwc->highest_bank_bit << 4));
> > + DPU_REG_WRITE(c, ubwc_ctrl_off,
> > + fast_clear | (ctx->ubwc->ubwc_swizzle) |
> > + (ctx->ubwc->highest_bank_bit << 4));
> > break;
> > case UBWC_3_0:
> > - DPU_REG_WRITE(c, SSPP_UBWC_STATIC_CTRL,
> > - BIT(30) | (ctx->ubwc->ubwc_swizzle) |
> > - (ctx->ubwc->highest_bank_bit << 4));
> > + DPU_REG_WRITE(c, ubwc_ctrl_off,
> > + BIT(30) | (ctx->ubwc->ubwc_swizzle) |
> > + (ctx->ubwc->highest_bank_bit << 4));
> > break;
> > case UBWC_4_0:
> > - DPU_REG_WRITE(c, SSPP_UBWC_STATIC_CTRL,
> > - MSM_FORMAT_IS_YUV(fmt) ? 0 : BIT(30));
> > + DPU_REG_WRITE(c, ubwc_ctrl_off,
> > + MSM_FORMAT_IS_YUV(fmt) ? 0 : BIT(30));
> > break;
> > }
> > }
> > @@ -313,19 +337,18 @@ static void dpu_hw_sspp_setup_format(struct dpu_sw_pipe *pipe,
> >
> > /* update scaler opmode, if appropriate */
> > if (test_bit(DPU_SSPP_CSC, &ctx->cap->features))
> > - _sspp_setup_opmode(ctx, VIG_OP_CSC_EN | VIG_OP_CSC_SRC_DATAFMT,
> > - MSM_FORMAT_IS_YUV(fmt));
> > + dpu_hw_sspp_setup_opmode(ctx, VIG_OP_CSC_EN | VIG_OP_CSC_SRC_DATAFMT,
> > + MSM_FORMAT_IS_YUV(fmt));
> > else if (test_bit(DPU_SSPP_CSC_10BIT, &ctx->cap->features))
> > - _sspp_setup_csc10_opmode(ctx,
> > - VIG_CSC_10_EN | VIG_CSC_10_SRC_DATAFMT,
> > - MSM_FORMAT_IS_YUV(fmt));
> > + dpu_hw_sspp_setup_csc10_opmode(ctx,
> > + VIG_CSC_10_EN | VIG_CSC_10_SRC_DATAFMT,
> > + MSM_FORMAT_IS_YUV(fmt));
>
> Again, useless whitespace changes.
checkpatch.pl says here is alignment issuse, so I do this fix.
> >
> > DPU_REG_WRITE(c, format_off, src_format);
> > DPU_REG_WRITE(c, unpack_pat_off, unpack);
> > DPU_REG_WRITE(c, op_mode_off, opmode);
> > -
>
> Why?
yes, will drop "-" diff.
> > /* clear previous UBWC error */
> > - DPU_REG_WRITE(c, SSPP_UBWC_ERROR_STATUS, BIT(31));
> > + DPU_REG_WRITE(c, ubwc_err_off, BIT(31));
> > }
> >
> > static void dpu_hw_sspp_setup_pe_config(struct dpu_hw_sspp *ctx,
> > @@ -385,9 +408,9 @@ static void dpu_hw_sspp_setup_pe_config(struct dpu_hw_sspp *ctx,
> > tot_req_pixels[3]);
> > }
> >
> > -static void _dpu_hw_sspp_setup_scaler3(struct dpu_hw_sspp *ctx,
> > - struct dpu_hw_scaler3_cfg *scaler3_cfg,
> > - const struct msm_format *format)
> > +void dpu_hw_sspp_setup_scaler3(struct dpu_hw_sspp *ctx,
> > + struct dpu_hw_scaler3_cfg *scaler3_cfg,
> > + const struct msm_format *format)
>
> And here...
checkpatch.pl says here is alignment issuse, so I do this fix.
Thanks,
Yuanjie
> --
> With best wishes
> Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists