[PATCH v1 10/14] drm/msm/disp/dpu: add supports of DSC encoder v1.2 engine

[Abhinav Kumar]

Hi Marijn

On 1/30/2023 12:16 PM, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> On 2023-01-24 15:52:46, Kuogee Hsieh wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If only replying to a small chunk somewhere in the middle of a diff
> and/or large review, please cut out unnecessary bits to make your reply
> easier to find :)
> 
>>>> +	data = (dsc->flatness_min_qp & 0x1f);
>>>> +	data |= (dsc->flatness_max_qp & 0x1f) << 5;
>>>> +	data |= (dsc_info->det_thresh_flatness & 0xff) << 10;
>>> dpu_hw_dsc.c computes this on the fly.  After removing that, and
>>> using initial_lines from the function parameters, only
>>> dsc_info->num_active_ss_per_enc remains.  Do you really need that
>>> msm_display_dsc_info struct here, do you need it at all?
>>
>> I ported these code from our down stream code base.
>>
>> I make it work first, then clean it up will follow.
>>
>> I submit it for review since it looks like you guy like to have code sooner.
> 
> Correct, I was looking forward to these patches albeit complete with the
> promised DSI support from Jessica, which still seems to be pending.
> 

DSI support is still being worked upon.

I dont think we promised DSC 1.2 will come with DSI together in the same 
series. It was always going to be DSC 1.2 + DP followed by another 
series from Jessica for DSI.

Lets set the expectations right.

Thanks

Abhinav
> When sending patches to that extent, with the intent of getting quick
> turnaround but knowing that they are not ready for prime time yet (or
> were they, based on your "submit it for review" mention? Don't you mean
> testing?), please annotate the series with an RFC tag accompanied with a
> description what still needs to be done and why.  That would have saved
> a great deal of comments and review.
> 
>> yes, eliminate msm_display_dsc_info is my next target and hope it can be
>> done.
> 
> Thank you.  Again, if that was the intent from the get-go, that's
> perfect material to put in an RFC series' cover letter.
> 
> - Marijn