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

[Jessica Zhang]

On 5/4/2023 1:03 PM, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

Hi all,

Just want to add to this list of series -- I'm planning to post the 
r66451 panel driver + dts changes next week after I post the v2 of DSI 
for DSC v1.2.

Thanks,

Jessica Zhang

> 
>>>
>>>> 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>
>>