[PATCH v5 3/7] drm/msm/dpu: add DPU_PINGPONG_DSC bits into PP_BLK and PP_BLK_TE marcos

[Abhinav Kumar]

On 5/4/2023 12:59 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On 04/05/2023 22:50, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/4/2023 12:36 PM, Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>> On 2023-05-04 11:25:44, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>> Sure, if you really prefer a split I'd go for two patches:
>>>>> 1. Add the flag to the enum and catalog;
>>>>> 2. Add the ops guard (functional change).
>>>>>
>>>>> Then don't forget to reword the commit message, following the 
>>>>> guidelines
>>>>> below and the suggestion for 2/7.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Marijn
>>>>
>>>> Plan sounds good to me.
>>>>
>>>> Marijn, we will wait for a couple of days to post the next rev but 
>>>> would
>>>> be hard more than that as we need to pick up other things which are
>>>> pending on top of this. Hence would appreciate if you can finish 
>>>> reviews
>>>> by then.
>>>
>>> It depends on how many more revisions are needed after that, and not all
>>> patches in this series have an r-b just yet.  Given the amount of review
>>> comments that are still trickling in (also on patches that already have
>>> maintainer r-b) I don't think we're quite there to start thinging about
>>> picking this up in drm-msm just yet.  I doubt anyone wants a repeat of
>>> the original DSC series, which went through many review rounds yet still
>>> required multiple series of bugfixes (some of which were pointed out and
>>> ignored in review) to be brought to a working state.  But the split
>>> across topics per series already makes this a lot less likely, many
>>> thanks for that.
>>>
>>
>> I think the outstanding comments shouldnt last more than 1-2 revs more 
>> on this one as its mostly due to multiple patches on the list touching 
>> catalog at the same time. I have been monitoring the comments closely 
>> even though I dont respond to all of them.
>>
>> One of the major reasons of the number of issues with DSC 1.1 was QC 
>> didn't really have the devices or panels to support it. Thats why I 
>> changed that this time around to take more control of validation of 
>> DSC 1.2 and ofcourse decided to break up of series into the least 
>> amount of functionality needed to keep the DPU driver intact.
>>
>> All that being said, we still value your comments and would gladly 
>> wait for a couple of days like I already wrote. But there are more 
>> incremental series on top of this:
>>
>> -> DSI changes for DSC 1.2
>> -> proper teardown for DSC
>> -> DSC pair allocation support
>> -> DSC 1.2 over DP
>>
>> We will be posting all of these within next couple of weeks on top of 
>> this.
> 
> I'd say, it's fine to post them now, as we have more or less agreed on 
> the helper series. The interface between the series should be stable then.
> 
> The RM series is probably the one having bigger dependencies/conflicts 
> on other pending patches (include virtual wide planes)
> 

1 is already posted, will keep fixing review comments
2 will be posted pretty soon

DSC1.2 over DSI will be complete with this set.

I will finish up virtual planes review by early next week. Already 
underway ...

3 & 4 will be posted soon after that.

>>
>>> In other words, let's take it slow and do things properly this time. And
>>> who knows, perhaps the rest of these patches are more straightforward.
>>>
>>
>> Ack. the intent is always to do things right the first time.
>>
>>> - Marijn
>>>
>>> <snip>
>