[PATCH v4 04/19] drm/msm/dpu: drop dpu_mdss_cfg::mdp_count field

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 at 19:10, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk at quicinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/4/2023 4:52 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 at 13:06, Dmitry Baryshkov
> > <dmitry.baryshkov at linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 at 07:04, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk at quicinc.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 7/3/2023 7:20 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>>> On 03/07/2023 05:01, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 6/19/2023 2:25 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>>>>> There is always a single MDP TOP block. Drop the mdp_count field and
> >>>>>> stop declaring dpu_mdp_cfg instances as arrays.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Tested-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten at somainline.org>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov at linaro.org>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The change drops mdp_count and stops using the array which is fine and
> >>>>> I will support that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But looking at the pattern I saw while using core_revision, both
> >>>>> DPU_MDP_VSYNC_SEL and DPU_MDP_AUDIO_SELECT can also be dropped from
> >>>>> the catalog in favor of using core_revision.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hence for that, I request you not to stop passing dpu_mdss_cfg to
> >>>>> dpu_hw_mdptop_init as that has the necessary information of
> >>>>> core_revision.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure, I'll restore it. Please note, however, that it might be better to
> >>>> pass struct dpu_caps instead of the full struct dpu_mdss_cfg.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for restoring.
> >>>
> >>> Can you pls explain this better? dpu_core_rev is part of dpu_mdss_cfg,
> >>> so dpu_caps wont be enough for this one.
> >>
> >> Oh, true. For some reason I thought that version is a part of dpu_caps.
> >
> > And after additional thought. Maybe it would be better to add a
> > separate struct dpu_mdss_version and pass it to the hw block init
> > functions?
> >
>
> I would like to see this evolve. Today, we are assuming that only the hw
> block init functions are the places we would use those.
>
>  From what I recall, the DSC over DP series needed the core_revision in
> the timing gen code somewhere.

I hope you are talking about the DPU driver here, not about the DP
driver. For the DP driver please use struct msm_dp_desc.

>
> If we see that pattern is possible once that lands, why not.
>
> Right now, I would leave it at dpu_mdss_cfg.
>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>    .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_3_0_msm8998.h   |  7 +---
> >>>>>>    .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_4_0_sdm845.h    |  7 +---
> >>>>>>    .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_0_sm8150.h    |  7 +---
> >>>>>>    .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_1_sc8180x.h   |  7 +---
> >>>>>>    .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_0_sm8250.h    |  7 +---
> >>>>>>    .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_2_sc7180.h    |  7 +---
> >>>>>>    .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_3_sm6115.h    |  7 +---
> >>>>>>    .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_4_sm6350.h    |  7 +---
> >>>>>>    .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_5_qcm2290.h   |  7 +---
> >>>>>>    .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_6_9_sm6375.h    |  7 +---
> >>>>>>    .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_7_0_sm8350.h    |  7 +---
> >>>>>>    .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_7_2_sc7280.h    |  7 +---
> >>>>>>    .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_0_sc8280xp.h  |  7 +---
> >>>>>>    .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_1_sm8450.h    |  7 +---
> >>>>>>    .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_9_0_sm8550.h    |  7 +---
> >>>>>>    .../gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h    |  1 -
> >>>>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_top.c    | 38 +++----------------
> >>>>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_top.h    |  8 ++--
> >>>>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c       |  4 +-
> >>>>>>    19 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 115 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> With best wishes
> >> Dmitry
> >
> >
> >



-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry