[PATCH v2 1/6] drm/msm/dpu: don't set DPU_INTF_TE globally

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On 23/05/2023 00:56, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> Title suggestion: s/globally/on non-TE/DSI (INTF) blocks
> 
> On 2023-05-23 00:45:22, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> Using BIT(DPU_INTF_TE) in INTF_SC7180_MASK (and by extension in
>> INTF_SC7280_MASK) results in this bit (and corrsponding operations)
>> being enabled for all interfaces, even the ones which do not have TE
>> block. Move this bit setting to INTF_DSI_TE(), so that it is only
>> enabled for those INTF blocks which have TE support.
>>
>> Fixes: 152c1d430992 ("drm/msm/dpu: Add TEAR-READ-pointer interrupt to INTF block")
>> Reviewed-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong at linaro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov at linaro.org>
> 
> We've always been setting flags globally but I guess it makes sense to
> not only restrict this flag to DPU >= 5.0.0 but also just the few
> hardware blocks that actually have these in their *enlarged* register
> space (and have the interrupt).
> 
> Reviewed-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten at somainline.org>
> 
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c | 3 +--
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c
>> index 1dee5ba2b312..162141cb5c83 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c
>> @@ -101,7 +101,6 @@
>>   
>>   #define INTF_SC7180_MASK \
>>   	(BIT(DPU_INTF_INPUT_CTRL) | \
>> -	 BIT(DPU_INTF_TE) | \
>>   	 BIT(DPU_INTF_STATUS_SUPPORTED) | \
>>   	 BIT(DPU_DATA_HCTL_EN))
>>   
>> @@ -544,7 +543,7 @@ static const struct dpu_pingpong_sub_blks sc7280_pp_sblk = {
>>   	{\
>>   	.name = _name, .id = _id, \
>>   	.base = _base, .len = _len, \
>> -	.features = _features, \
>> +	.features = _features | BIT(DPU_INTF_TE), \
> 
> Now that we're more broadly switching to this pattern, should we do the
> same for PP_BLK() with and without TE block?  That way we can also
> forcefully initialize intr_rdptr=-1 similar to what I did for
> intr_tear_rd_ptr in INTF_BLK() (vs INTF_BLK_DSI_TE) here, instead of
> having the -1's floating around the catalog when I added them in commit
> 7952f5180eb3e ("drm/msm/dpu: Remove intr_rdptr from DPU >= 5.0.0
> pingpong config").

If we are going to expand the macros, then hiding -1 probably doesn't 
make sense as it will reappear soon.

Probably it makes sense to do another thing (which would play better 
with the expanded macros): increase IRQ indices by 1, making 'NO IRQ' 
equal to 0 instead of -1. This way all non-existing interrupts can be 
omitted during macros expansion. WDYT?

> 
> - Marijn
> 
>>   	.type = _type, \
>>   	.controller_id = _ctrl_id, \
>>   	.prog_fetch_lines_worst_case = _progfetch, \
>> -- 
>> 2.39.2
>>

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry