Re: [PATCH 05/10] drm/msm/dpu: Allow variable SSPP/INTF_BLK size

[Marijn Suijten]

On 2023-02-13 13:38:33, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On 13/02/2023 13:12, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > On 2023-02-11 13:26:51, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >> These blocks are of variable length on different SoCs. Set the
> >> correct values where I was able to retrieve it from downstream
> >> DTs and leave the old defaults (0x1c8 for sspp and 0x280 for
> >> intf) otherwise.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>   .../gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c    | 242 +++++++++---------
> >>   1 file changed, 121 insertions(+), 121 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 802050118345..d9ef1e133c1e 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c
> > [..]
> >> @@ -1848,10 +1848,10 @@ static struct dpu_dsc_cfg sm8150_dsc[] = {
> >>   /*************************************************************
> >>    * INTF sub blocks config
> >>    *************************************************************/
> >> -#define INTF_BLK(_name, _id, _base, _type, _ctrl_id, _progfetch, _features, _reg, _underrun_bit, _vsync_bit) \
> >> +#define INTF_BLK(_name, _id, _base, _len, _type, _ctrl_id, _progfetch, _features, _reg, _underrun_bit, _vsync_bit) \
> > 
> > Dmitry and I discussed in #freedreno to instead add the INTF_BLK_DSI_TE
> > macro that accounts for the INTF TE registers using this higher register
> > area, as well as an extended signature to configure extra interrupts.
> 
> Yes, that's still the plan. It's slightly painful that we are touching 
> this are simultaneously.

Should we (Konrad) then drop this patch as there's no need to add these
(mostly RAZ/WI) registers to the dump until my INTF TE series starts
using them?  That'll make rebasing easier on everyone too.

- Marijn

> > (Besides, I think the len is currently only used for snapshot dumping
> > and no validation for out-of-blk reads/writes)
> 
> Yes. Because in most of the cases non-existing registers seem to be RAZ/WI.
> 
> > 
> >>   	{\
> >>   	.name = _name, .id = _id, \
> >> -	.base = _base, .len = 0x280, \
> >> +	.base = _base, .len = _len, \
> >>   	.features = _features, \
> >>   	.type = _type, \
> >>   	.controller_id = _ctrl_id, \
> > [..]
> > 
> > - Marijn
> 
> -- 
> With best wishes
> Dmitry
>