[PATCH v6 06/10] drm/msm/dpu: deduplicate some (most) of SSPP sub-blocks

[Abhinav Kumar]

On 10/6/2023 6:14 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> As we have dropped the variadic parts of SSPP sub-blocks declarations,
> deduplicate them now, reducing memory cruft.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov at linaro.org>
> ---
>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_3_0_msm8998.h   | 16 +--
>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_4_0_sdm845.h    | 16 +--
>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_0_sm8150.h    | 16 +--
>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_1_sc8180x.h   | 16 +--
>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_4_sm6125.h    |  6 +-
>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_0_sm8250.h    | 16 +--
>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_2_sc7180.h    |  8 +-
>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_3_sm6115.h    |  4 +-
>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_4_sm6350.h    |  8 +-
>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_5_qcm2290.h   |  4 +-
>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_9_sm6375.h    |  4 +-
>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_7_0_sm8350.h    | 16 +--
>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_7_2_sc7280.h    |  8 +-
>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_0_sc8280xp.h  | 16 +--
>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_1_sm8450.h    | 16 +--
>   .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_9_0_sm8550.h    | 20 ++--
>   .../gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c    | 97 +++++--------------
>   17 files changed, 120 insertions(+), 167 deletions(-)
> 

<snip>

> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_9_0_sm8550.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_9_0_sm8550.h
> index e60427f54b27..860feb9c54e6 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_9_0_sm8550.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_9_0_sm8550.h
> @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ static const struct dpu_sspp_cfg sm8550_sspp[] = {
>   		.name = "sspp_0", .id = SSPP_VIG0,
>   		.base = 0x4000, .len = 0x344,
>   		.features = VIG_SC7180_MASK,
> -		.sblk = &sm8550_vig_sblk_0,
> +		.sblk = &dpu_vig_sblk_qseed3_3_2,

Some of this naming doesnt sound right to me. What I had suggested was 
just dpu_vig_sblk_scaler_x_y but what is used is dpu_vig_sblk_qseedx_x_y

This is not correct because technically sm8550 was qseed4 as its scaler 
version is > 0x3000

So this adds some discrepancy in the naming.