[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACSVV02muSij-mYodK9uXRbe0WYso4DW_43_px_w=FDmK0=V=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2026 10:37:59 -0800
From: Rob Clark <rob.clark@....qualcomm.com>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Dmitry Baryshkov <lumag@...nel.org>,
Abhinav Kumar <abhinav.kumar@...ux.dev>,
Jessica Zhang <jesszhan0024@...il.com>, Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>,
Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Stephan Gerhold <stephan.gerhold@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] drm/msm/dpu: fix SSPP_UBWC_STATIC_CTRL programming on
UBWC 5.x+
On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 10:36 PM Dmitry Baryshkov
<dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
> Code in dpu_hw_sspp_setup_format() doesn't handle UBWC versions bigger
> than 4.0. Replace switch-case with if-else checks, making sure that the
> register is initialized on UBWC 5.x (and later) hosts.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_sspp.c | 41 ++++++++++++++---------------
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_sspp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_sspp.c
> index a99e33230514..b0c97f5e47ea 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_sspp.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_sspp.c
> @@ -279,6 +279,7 @@ static void dpu_hw_sspp_setup_format(struct dpu_sw_pipe *pipe,
>
> if (fmt->fetch_mode != MDP_FETCH_LINEAR) {
> u32 hbb = ctx->ubwc->highest_bank_bit - 13;
> + u32 ctrl_val;
>
> if (MSM_FORMAT_IS_UBWC(fmt))
> opmode |= MDSS_MDP_OP_BWC_EN;
> @@ -286,30 +287,28 @@ static void dpu_hw_sspp_setup_format(struct dpu_sw_pipe *pipe,
> DPU_REG_WRITE(c, SSPP_FETCH_CONFIG,
> DPU_FETCH_CONFIG_RESET_VALUE |
> hbb << 18);
> - switch (ctx->ubwc->ubwc_enc_version) {
> - case UBWC_1_0:
> +
> + if (ctx->ubwc->ubwc_enc_version == UBWC_1_0) {
> fast_clear = fmt->alpha_enable ? BIT(31) : 0;
> - DPU_REG_WRITE(c, ubwc_static_ctrl_off,
> - fast_clear | (ctx->ubwc->ubwc_swizzle & 0x1) |
> - BIT(8) |
> - (hbb << 4));
> - break;
> - case UBWC_2_0:
> + ctrl_val = fast_clear | (ctx->ubwc->ubwc_swizzle & 0x1) |
> + BIT(8) | (hbb << 4);
> + } else if (ctx->ubwc->ubwc_enc_version == UBWC_2_0) {
> fast_clear = fmt->alpha_enable ? BIT(31) : 0;
> - DPU_REG_WRITE(c, ubwc_static_ctrl_off,
> - fast_clear | (ctx->ubwc->ubwc_swizzle) |
> - (hbb << 4));
> - break;
> - case UBWC_3_0:
> - DPU_REG_WRITE(c, ubwc_static_ctrl_off,
> - BIT(30) | (ctx->ubwc->ubwc_swizzle) |
> - (hbb << 4));
> - break;
> - case UBWC_4_0:
> - DPU_REG_WRITE(c, ubwc_static_ctrl_off,
> - MSM_FORMAT_IS_YUV(fmt) ? 0 : BIT(30));
> - break;
> + ctrl_val = fast_clear | ctx->ubwc->ubwc_swizzle | (hbb << 4);
> + } else if (ctx->ubwc->ubwc_enc_version == UBWC_3_0) {
> + ctrl_val = BIT(30) | (ctx->ubwc->ubwc_swizzle) | (hbb << 4);
> + } else if (ctx->ubwc->ubwc_enc_version == UBWC_4_0) {
> + ctrl_val = MSM_FORMAT_IS_YUV(fmt) ? 0 : BIT(30);
> + } else { /* UBWC 5.0+ */
Is this the same for UBWC 6? Should we warn on version > UBWC_6_0?
BR,
-R
> + if (MSM_FORMAT_IS_YUV(fmt))
> + ctrl_val = 0;
> + else if (MSM_FORMAT_IS_DX(fmt)) /* or FP16, but it's unsupported */
> + ctrl_val = BIT(30);
> + else
> + ctrl_val = BIT(30) | BIT(31);
> }
> +
> + DPU_REG_WRITE(c, ubwc_static_ctrl_off, ctrl_val);
> }
>
> opmode |= MDSS_MDP_OP_PE_OVERRIDE;
>
> --
> 2.47.3
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists