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

[Abhinav Kumar]

On 7/4/2023 10:28 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> 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.
> 

Yes DPU driver.

>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
>