On 2025-02-03 21:14:26, Danila Tikhonov wrote:Thanks, I will fix it in the next version.
From: Eugene Lepshy <fekz115@xxxxxxxxx>Weird zero-width \u200b spaces here between "values" and "other", please delete
DRM DSC helper has parameters for various bpc values other than 8:
those.
There are no other bpc checks, you are right. But to be honest I don't(8/10/12/14/16).Should this patch elaborate that those "DRM DSC helper" don't have any
Remove this guard.
Signed-off-by: Eugene Lepshy <fekz115@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Danila Tikhonov <danila@xxxxxxxxxxx>
additional guarding for the values you mention either, i.e. passing 9 or 11 or
16 don't seem to be checked anywhere else either?
And your title might have space to spell out "Bits Per Component" entirely.I'll fix that too.
---This seems supicous on the dpu1 side, in the original DSC 1.1 (not 1.2) block in
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c | 7 +------
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c
index 007311c21fda..d182af7bbb81 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c
@@ -1767,11 +1767,6 @@ static int dsi_populate_dsc_params(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host, struct drm_dsc
return -EINVAL;
}
- if (dsc->bits_per_component != 8) {
- DRM_DEV_ERROR(&msm_host->pdev->dev, "DSI does not support bits_per_component != 8 yet\n");
- return -EOPNOTSUPP;
- }
-
dsc->simple_422 = 0;
dsc->convert_rgb = 1;
dsc->vbr_enable = 0;
dpu_hw_dsc_config(), which has:
data |= (dsc->line_buf_depth << 3);
data |= (dsc->simple_422 << 2);
data |= (dsc->convert_rgb << 1);
data |= dsc->bits_per_component;
The original value of `8` would overlap with the lowest bit of line_buf_depth
(4th bit in `data`). Now, the 2nd bit which will take the value from
convert_rgb, which is already set to 1 above, will overlap with the 2nd bit in
your new bpc value of 10.
Can you double-check that this code in DPU1 is actually valid? I assume you
have tested this panel at least and it is working (worthy mention in the cover
letter?), this just seems like yet another mistake in the original bindings
(though the register always had a matching value with downstream on 8 BPC panels
for me).
Maybe we should remove this comment entirely?@@ -1779,7 +1774,7 @@ static int dsi_populate_dsc_params(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host, struct drm_dscGood catch - this comment sounds like it's documenting a limitation of
drm_dsc_set_const_params(dsc);
drm_dsc_set_rc_buf_thresh(dsc);
- /* handle only bpp = bpc = 8, pre-SCR panels */
+ /* handle only pre-SCR panels */
ret = drm_dsc_setup_rc_params(dsc, DRM_DSC_1_1_PRE_SCR);
this helper function, but the function does not have such limitations...
rc_parameters_pre_scr has values for all these combinations.
- Marijn
if (ret) {
DRM_DEV_ERROR(&msm_host->pdev->dev, "could not find DSC RC parameters\n");
--
2.48.1