[PATCH v1 2/3] drm/msm/dp: decoupling dp->id out of dp controller_id at scxxxx_dp_cfg table
Abhinav Kumar
quic_abhinavk at quicinc.com
Sat Jun 25 01:23:04 UTC 2022
On 6/24/2022 5:11 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 at 03:03, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk at quicinc.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Stephen / Dmitry
>>
>> Let me try to explain the issue kuogee is trying to fix below:
>>
>> On 6/24/2022 4:56 PM, Kuogee Hsieh wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/24/2022 4:45 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>> Quoting Kuogee Hsieh (2022-06-24 16:30:59)
>>>>> On 6/24/2022 4:12 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>>>> Quoting Kuogee Hsieh (2022-06-24 15:53:45)
>>>>>>> MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_1 need to match to the index = 1 of
>>>>>>> sc7280_dp_cfg[] <== This is correct
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem is sc7280_dp_cfg[] have two entries since eDP place at
>>>>>>> index
>>>>>>> of MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but .num_desc = 1 <== this said only have one entry at
>>>>>>> sc7280_dp_cfg[]
>>>>>>> table. Therefore eDP will never be found at for loop at
>>>>>>> _dpu_kms_initialize_displayport().
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but what else does the MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_1 need to match? Because
>>>>>> the intention of the previous commit was to make it so the order of
>>>>>> sc7280_dp_cfg couldn't be messed up and not match the
>>>>>> MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_1 value that lives in sc7280_intf[].
>>>>>
>>>>> at _dpu_kms_initialize_displayport()
>>>>>
>>>>>> - info.h_tile_instance[0] = i; <== assign i to become dp
>>>>>> controller id, "i" is index of scxxxx_dp_cfg[]
>>>>> This what I mean MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_1 need to match to index = 1 of
>>>>> scxxxx_dp_cfg[].
>>>>>
>>>>> it it is not match, then MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_1 with match to different
>>>>> INTF.
>>>> I thought we matched the INTF instance by searching through
>>>> sc7280_intf[] for a matching MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_1 and then returning that
>>>> INTF number. See dpu_encoder_get_intf() and the caller.
>>>
>>> yes, but the controller_id had been over written by dp->id.
>>>
>>> u32 controller_id = disp_info->h_tile_instance[i];
>>>
>>>
>>> See below code.
>>>
>>>
>>>> for (i = 0; i < disp_info->num_of_h_tiles && !ret; i++) {
>>>> /*
>>>> * Left-most tile is at index 0, content is
>>>> controller id
>>>> * h_tile_instance_ids[2] = {0, 1}; DSI0 = left, DSI1
>>>> = right
>>>> * h_tile_instance_ids[2] = {1, 0}; DSI1 = left, DSI0
>>>> = right
>>>> */
>>>> u32 controller_id = disp_info->h_tile_instance[i];
>>>> <== kuogee assign dp->id to controller_id
>>>>
>>>> if (disp_info->num_of_h_tiles > 1) {
>>>> if (i == 0)
>>>> phys_params.split_role =
>>>> ENC_ROLE_MASTER;
>>>> else
>>>> phys_params.split_role = ENC_ROLE_SLAVE;
>>>> } else {
>>>> phys_params.split_role = ENC_ROLE_SOLO;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> DPU_DEBUG("h_tile_instance %d = %d, split_role %d\n",
>>>> i, controller_id,
>>>> phys_params.split_role);
>>>>
>>>> phys_params.intf_idx =
>>>> dpu_encoder_get_intf(dpu_kms->catalog,
>>>>
>>>> intf_type,
>>>>
>>>> controller_id);
>>
>>
>> So let me try to explain this as this is what i understood from the
>> patch and how kuogee explained me.
>>
>> The ordering of the array still matters here and thats what he is trying
>> to address with the second change.
>>
>> So as per him, he tried to swap the order of entries like below and that
>> did not work and that is incorrect behavior because he still retained
>> the MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_x field for the table like below:
>
> I'd like to understand why did he try to change the order in the first place.
>
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
>> index dcd80c8a794c..7816e82452ca 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c
>> @@ -140,8 +140,8 @@ static const struct msm_dp_config sc7180_dp_cfg = {
>>
>> static const struct msm_dp_config sc7280_dp_cfg = {
>> .descs = (const struct msm_dp_desc[]) {
>> - [MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_0] = { .io_start = 0x0ae90000,
>> .connector_type = DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DisplayPort, .wide_bus_en = true },
>> [MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_1] = { .io_start = 0x0aea0000,
>> .connector_type = DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_eDP, .wide_bus_en = true },
>> + [MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_0] = { .io_start = 0x0ae90000,
>> .connector_type = DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_DisplayPort, .wide_bus_en = true },
>> },
>> .num_descs = 2,
>> };
>>
>>
>> The reason order is important is because in this function below, even
>> though it matches the address to find which one to use it loops through
>> the array and so the value of *id will change depending on which one is
>> located where.
>>
>> static const struct msm_dp_desc *dp_display_get_desc(struct
>> platform_device *pdev,
>> unsigned int *id)
>> {
>> const struct msm_dp_config *cfg = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
>> struct resource *res;
>> int i;
>>
>> res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
>> if (!res)
>> return NULL;
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < cfg->num_descs; i++) {
>> if (cfg->descs[i].io_start == res->start) {
>> *id = i;
>
> The id is set to the index of the corresponding DP instance in the
> descs array, which is MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_n. Correct up to now.
Right, this is where I misunderstood his explanation.
Even if we swap the order, but retain the index correctly it will still
work today.
Hes not sure of the root-cause of why turning on the primary display
first fixes the issue.
I think till we root-cause that, lets put this on hold.
>
>> return &cfg->descs[i];
>> }
>> }
>>
>> In dp_display_bind(), dp->id is used as the index of assigning the
>> dp_display,
>>
>> priv->dp[dp->id] = &dp->dp_display;
>
> dp->id earlier is set to the id returned by dp_display_get_desc.
> So the priv->dp is now indexed by MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_n. Again, correct.
>
>>
>> And now in _dpu_kms_initialize_displayport(), in the array this will
>> decide the value of info.h_tile_instance[0] which will be assigned to
>> just the index i.
>
> i is iterated over priv->dp indices (MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_n, see above),
> which means that that h_tile_instance[0] is now set to the
> MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_n. Still correct.
>
>> info.h_tile_instance[0] is then used as the controller id to find from
>> the catalog table.
>
> This sounds good.
>
>> So if this order is not retained it does not work.
>>
>> Thats the issue he is trying to address to make the order of entries
>> irrelevant in the table in dp_display.c
>
>
>
More information about the dri-devel
mailing list