Re: [PATCH 5/5] drm/dsc: Prevent negative BPG offsets from shadowing adjacent bitfields
From: Marijn Suijten
Date: Tue Oct 04 2022 - 18:39:56 EST
On 2022-10-04 15:31:10, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
> On 10/4/2022 2:57 PM, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > [..]
> > Alas, as explained in the cover letter I opted to perform the masking in
> > the PPS packing code as the DSC block code also reads these values, and
> > would suddenly write 6-bit intead of 8-bit values to the
> > DSC_RANGE_BPG_OFFSET registers. Quick testing on the mentioned sdm845
> > platform shows no regressions, but I'm not sure if that's safe to rely
> > on?
> I looked up the MDP_DSC_0_RANGE_BPG_OFFSET_* registers.
> They take only a 6-bit value according to the SW documentation ( bits 5:0 )
> It was always expecting only a 6-bit value and not 8.
> So this change is safe.
Ack, I think that implies I should make this change and move the masks
to the DSI driver?
> >> If you want to move to helper, other drivers need to be changed too to
> >> remove duplicate & 0x3f.
> > Sure, we only have to confirm whether those drivers also read back the
> > value(s) in rc_range_params, and expect / allow this to be 8 instead of
> > 6 bits.
> >> FWIW, this too has already been fixed in the latest downstream driver too.
> > What is this supposed to mean? Is there a downstream DPU project that
> > has pending patches needing to be upstreamed? Or is the downstream SDE,
> > techpack/display, or whatever it is called nowadays, slowly using more
> > DRM structs like drm_dsc_config and this drm_dsc_pps_payload_pack()
> > helper function as pointed out in an earlier mail?
> No, what I meant was, the version of downstream driver based on which
> the upstream DSC was made seems to be an older version. Downstream
> drivers keep getting updated and we always keep trying to align with
> upstream structs.
> This is true not just for DSC but even other blocks.
> So as part of that effort, we started using struct drm_dsc_config . That
> change was made on newer chipsets. But the downstream SW on sdm845 based
> on which the DSC was upstreamed seems like didnt have that. Hence all
> this redundant math happened.
> So this comment was more of a explanation about why this issue happened
> even though latest downstream didnt have this issue.
Thanks, I understood most of that but wasn't aware these exact "issues"
were also addressed downstream (by i.e. also using the upstream
> > Offtopic: are SDE and DPU growing closer together, hopefully achieving
> > feature parity allowing the SDE project to be dropped in favour of a
> > fully upstreamed DPU driver for day-one out-of-the-box mainline support
> > for new SoCs (as long as work is published and on its way upstream)?
> There is still a lot of gap between SDE and DPU drivers at this point.
> We keep trying to upstream as many features as possible to minimize the
> gap but there is still a lot of work to do.
Glad to hear, but that sounds like a very hard to close gap unless
downstream "just works on DPU" instead of having parallel development on
two "competing" drivers for the exact same hardware.