[PATCH v3 18/27] drm/msm/dpu: populate SmartDMA features in hw catalog

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On 04/02/2023 04:43, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/3/2023 6:29 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> On 04/02/2023 01:35, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/3/2023 10:21 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>> Downstream driver uses dpu->caps->smart_dma_rev to update
>>>> sspp->cap->features with the bit corresponding to the supported 
>>>> SmartDMA
>>>> version. Upstream driver does not do this, resulting in SSPP subdriver
>>>> not enbaling setup_multirect callback. Add corresponding SmartDMA SSPP
>>>> feature bits to dpu hw catalog.
>>>>
>>>
>>> While reviewing this patch, I had a first hand experience of how we 
>>> are reusing SSPP bitmasks for so many chipsets but I think overall 
>>> you got them right here :)
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov at linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c | 10 +++++++---
>>>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> 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 cf053e8f081e..fc818b0273e7 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c
>>>> @@ -21,13 +21,16 @@
>>>>       (VIG_MASK | BIT(DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED3))
>>>>   #define VIG_SDM845_MASK \
>>>> -    (VIG_MASK | BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL) | BIT(DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED3))
>>>> +    (VIG_MASK | BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL) | 
>>>> BIT(DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED3) |\
>>>> +    BIT(DPU_SSPP_SMART_DMA_V2))
>>>>   #define VIG_SC7180_MASK \
>>>> -    (VIG_MASK | BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL) | BIT(DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED4))
>>>> +    (VIG_MASK | BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL) | 
>>>> BIT(DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED4) |\
>>>> +    BIT(DPU_SSPP_SMART_DMA_V2))
>>>>   #define VIG_SM8250_MASK \
>>>> -    (VIG_MASK | BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL) | 
>>>> BIT(DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED3LITE))
>>>> +    (VIG_MASK | BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL) | 
>>>> BIT(DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED3LITE) |\
>>>> +    BIT(DPU_SSPP_SMART_DMA_V2))
>>>>   #define VIG_QCM2290_MASK (VIG_MASK | BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL))
>>>> @@ -42,6 +45,7 @@
>>>>   #define DMA_SDM845_MASK \
>>>>       (BIT(DPU_SSPP_SRC) | BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS) | 
>>>> BIT(DPU_SSPP_QOS_8LVL) |\
>>>>       BIT(DPU_SSPP_TS_PREFILL) | BIT(DPU_SSPP_TS_PREFILL_REC1) |\
>>>> +    BIT(DPU_SSPP_SMART_DMA_V2) |\
>>>>       BIT(DPU_SSPP_CDP) | BIT(DPU_SSPP_EXCL_RECT))
>>>>   #define DMA_CURSOR_SDM845_MASK \
>>>
>>> VIG_SDM845_MASK and DMA_SDM845_MASK are used for many other chipsets 
>>> like 8250, 8450, 8550.
>>>
>>> At the moment, for visual validation of this series, I only have 
>>> sc7180/sc7280. We are leaving the rest for CI.
>>>
>>> Was that an intentional approach?
>>>
>>> If so, we will need tested-by tags from folks having 
>>> 8350/8450/8550/sc8280x,qcm2290?
>>>
>>> I am only owning the visual validation on sc7280 atm.
>>
>> I'm not quite sure what is your intent here. Are there any SoCs after 
>> 845 that do not have SmartDMA 2.5? Or do you propose to enable 
>> SmartDMA only for the chipsets that we can visually test? That sounds 
>> strange.
>>
> 
> Yes I was thinking to enable smartDMA at the moment on chipsets which we 
> can validate visually that display comes up. But I am not sure if thats 
> entirely practical.
> 
> But the intent was I just want to make sure basic display does come up 
> with smartDMA enabled if we are enabling it for all chipsets.

I don't think it is practical or logical. We don't require validating 
other changes on all possible chipsets, so what is so different with 
this one?

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry