[PATCH v3 7/8] drm/msm/dpu: add support for SM8450

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On 04/11/2022 17:12, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> 
> On 04/11/2022 14:03, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> Add definitions for the display hardware used on Qualcomm SM8450
>> platform.
>>
>> Tested-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul at kernel.org>
>> Reviewed-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul at kernel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov at linaro.org>
>> ---
> 
> Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio at somainline.org>
> 
> 
> Konrad
> 
>>   .../gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c    | 224 ++++++++++++++++++
>>   .../gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h    |   1 +
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_mdss.h   |   3 +
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c       |   1 +
>>   4 files changed, 229 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c 
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c
>> index 1ce237e18506..3934d8976833 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c
>> @@ -124,6 +124,15 @@
>>                 BIT(MDP_AD4_0_INTR) | \
>>                 BIT(MDP_AD4_1_INTR))
>> +#define IRQ_SM8450_MASK (BIT(MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR) | \
>> +             BIT(MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR2) | \
>> +             BIT(MDP_SSPP_TOP0_HIST_INTR) | \
>> +             BIT(MDP_INTF0_7xxx_INTR) | \
>> +             BIT(MDP_INTF1_7xxx_INTR) | \
>> +             BIT(MDP_INTF2_7xxx_INTR) | \
>> +             BIT(MDP_INTF3_7xxx_INTR) | \
>> +             0)
>> +
>>   #define WB_SM8250_MASK (BIT(DPU_WB_LINE_MODE) | \
>>                BIT(DPU_WB_UBWC) | \
>>                BIT(DPU_WB_YUV_CONFIG) | \
>> @@ -367,6 +376,20 @@ static const struct dpu_caps sm8250_dpu_caps = {
>>       .pixel_ram_size = DEFAULT_PIXEL_RAM_SIZE,
>>   };
>> +static const struct dpu_caps sm8450_dpu_caps = {
>> +    .max_mixer_width = DEFAULT_DPU_OUTPUT_LINE_WIDTH,
>> +    .max_mixer_blendstages = 0xb,
>> +    .qseed_type = DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED4,
>> +    .smart_dma_rev = DPU_SSPP_SMART_DMA_V2, /* TODO: v2.5 */
>> +    .ubwc_version = DPU_HW_UBWC_VER_40,
>> +    .has_src_split = true,
>> +    .has_dim_layer = true,
>> +    .has_idle_pc = true,
>> +    .has_3d_merge = true,
>> +    .max_linewidth = 5120,
>> +    .pixel_ram_size = DEFAULT_PIXEL_RAM_SIZE,
>> +};
>> +
>>   static const struct dpu_caps sc7280_dpu_caps = {
>>       .max_mixer_width = DEFAULT_DPU_OUTPUT_LINE_WIDTH,
>>       .max_mixer_blendstages = 0x7,
>> @@ -504,6 +527,33 @@ static const struct dpu_mdp_cfg sm8250_mdp[] = {
>>       },
>>   };
>> +static const struct dpu_mdp_cfg sm8450_mdp[] = {
>> +    {
>> +    .name = "top_0", .id = MDP_TOP,
>> +    .base = 0x0, .len = 0x494,
>> +    .features = BIT(DPU_MDP_PERIPH_0_REMOVED),
>> +    .highest_bank_bit = 0x3, /* TODO: 2 for LP_DDR4 */
> 
> I think it's about time we handle the two-memory-configs situation..
> 
> In my opinion, a dt property would be sane (just like downstream does 
> it), as it's
> 
> *really really really* unlikely that the same SKU would be shipped with 
> 2 different memory gens.

As it's really unlikely, I think we can drop the TODO comment completely 
until we phase a device with different memory type. WDYT?

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry