Re: [PATCH 0/3] drm/msm/dpu: Initialize SSPP scaler version (from register read)

[Marijn Suijten]

On 2023-02-16 05:02:32, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 at 01:02, Marijn Suijten
> <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Random inspection of the SSPP code surfaced that the version field of
> > dpu_scaler_blk was never assigned in the catalog, resulting in wrong
> > codepaths to be taken within dpu_hw_setup_scaler3 based on a 0 version.
> > Rectify this by reading an accurate value from a register (that is not
> > equal to the values represented by DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEEDx enum
> > variants) and deleting dead code around QSEED versioning.
> >
> > Future changes should likely get rid of the distinction between QSEED3
> > and up, as these are now purely determined from the register value.
> > Furthermore implementations could look at the scaler subblk .id field
> > rather than the SSPP feature bits, which currently hold redundant
> > information.
> >
> > ---
> > Marijn Suijten (3):
> >       drm/msm/dpu: Read previously-uninitialized SSPP scaler version from hw
> >       drm/msm/dpu: Drop unused get_scaler_ver callback from SSPP
> >       drm/msm/dpu: Drop unused qseed_type from catalog dpu_caps
> 
> The cleanup looks good. However as you are on it, maybe you can also
> add patch 4, dropping DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED3LITE and
> DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED4 in favour of using QSEED3 for all these
> scalers?

I surely can!  Do you mind if I rename it to QSEED3_AND_UP for clarity?
How about the second question, dropping this redundant information from
the SSPP feature flags and only looking at the scaler_blk.id?

> As we are going to use scaler_version to distinguish between
> them, it would be logical not to duplicate that bit of information
> (not to mention all the possible troubles if scaler_version disagrees
> with the sblk->scaler_blk.id).

Note that we had a similar discussion for UBWC HW decoder version and it
was decided to go the opposite route [1].  That may have been for
technical reasons (unclocked register access), but it's an inconsistent
approach to say the least.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/71f96910-e7b1-92f9-ae15-79bd1da40a0d@xxxxxxxxxxx/

- Marijn