[PATCH v5 0/4] drm/msm/dpu: more catalog fixes

[PATCH v5 0/4] drm/msm/dpu: more catalog fixes

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

This is a spin-off from [1]. Since most of the patches have been merged,
split away the small fixes. Continue the versioning of the patches.

Changes since v4:
- Fix commit message of sc8280xp patch. It is split display/panel rather
  than split source (Abhinav)
- Added DSC_4 and DSC_5 to sc8180x patch (Abhinav)
- Expanded commit message of the sm8450's CTL patch to describe all
  reasons to use existing masks for the SoC CTL features.

[1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/113910/

Dmitry Baryshkov (4):
  drm/msm/dpu: enable DPU_CTL_SPLIT_DISPLAY for sc8280xp
  drm/msm/dpu: enable DSPP_2/3 for LM_2/3 on sm8450
  drm/msm/dpu: enable DSPP and DSC on sc8180x
  drm/msm/dpu: use CTL_SC7280_MASK for sm8450's ctl_0

 .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_1_sc8180x.h   | 28 +++++++++++++++++--
 .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_0_sc8280xp.h  |  5 ++--
 .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_1_sm8450.h    |  6 ++--
 3 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

-- 
2.39.2

[PATCH v5 1/4] drm/msm/dpu: enable DPU_CTL_SPLIT_DISPLAY for sc8280xp

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

Theoretically, since sm8150 we should be using a single CTL for the
split panel case, but since we do not support it for now, fallback to
DPU_CTL_SPLIT_DISPLAY.

Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_0_sc8280xp.h | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_0_sc8280xp.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_0_sc8280xp.h
index 9aab110b8c44..622992ae53ef 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_0_sc8280xp.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_0_sc8280xp.h
@@ -42,17 +42,18 @@ static const struct dpu_mdp_cfg sc8280xp_mdp[] = {
 	},
 };
 
+/* FIXME: get rid of DPU_CTL_SPLIT_DISPLAY in favour of proper ACTIVE_CTL support */
 static const struct dpu_ctl_cfg sc8280xp_ctl[] = {
 	{
 	.name = "ctl_0", .id = CTL_0,
 	.base = 0x15000, .len = 0x204,
-	.features = CTL_SC7280_MASK,
+	.features = BIT(DPU_CTL_SPLIT_DISPLAY) | CTL_SC7280_MASK,
 	.intr_start = DPU_IRQ_IDX(MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR2, 9),
 	},
 	{
 	.name = "ctl_1", .id = CTL_1,
 	.base = 0x16000, .len = 0x204,
-	.features = CTL_SC7280_MASK,
+	.features = BIT(DPU_CTL_SPLIT_DISPLAY) | CTL_SC7280_MASK,
 	.intr_start = DPU_IRQ_IDX(MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR2, 10),
 	},
 	{
-- 
2.39.2

Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] drm/msm/dpu: enable DPU_CTL_SPLIT_DISPLAY for sc8280xp

[Abhinav Kumar]

On 4/7/2023 5:27 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> Theoretically, since sm8150 we should be using a single CTL for the
> split panel case, but since we do not support it for now, fallback to
> DPU_CTL_SPLIT_DISPLAY.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>

Reviewed-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com>

[PATCH v5 2/4] drm/msm/dpu: enable DSPP_2/3 for LM_2/3 on sm8450

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

Mark DSPP_2 and DSPP_3 as used for LM_2 and LM_3

Fixes: 100d7ef6995d ("drm/msm/dpu: add support for SM8450")
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_1_sm8450.h | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_1_sm8450.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_1_sm8450.h
index 02a259b6b426..e111ca1f4bf5 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_1_sm8450.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_1_sm8450.h
@@ -107,9 +107,9 @@ static const struct dpu_lm_cfg sm8450_lm[] = {
 	LM_BLK("lm_1", LM_1, 0x45000, MIXER_SDM845_MASK,
 		&sdm845_lm_sblk, PINGPONG_1, LM_0, DSPP_1),
 	LM_BLK("lm_2", LM_2, 0x46000, MIXER_SDM845_MASK,
-		&sdm845_lm_sblk, PINGPONG_2, LM_3, 0),
+		&sdm845_lm_sblk, PINGPONG_2, LM_3, DSPP_2),
 	LM_BLK("lm_3", LM_3, 0x47000, MIXER_SDM845_MASK,
-		&sdm845_lm_sblk, PINGPONG_3, LM_2, 0),
+		&sdm845_lm_sblk, PINGPONG_3, LM_2, DSPP_3),
 	LM_BLK("lm_4", LM_4, 0x48000, MIXER_SDM845_MASK,
 		&sdm845_lm_sblk, PINGPONG_4, LM_5, 0),
 	LM_BLK("lm_5", LM_5, 0x49000, MIXER_SDM845_MASK,
-- 
2.39.2

Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] drm/msm/dpu: enable DSPP_2/3 for LM_2/3 on sm8450

[Abhinav Kumar]

On 4/7/2023 5:27 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> Mark DSPP_2 and DSPP_3 as used for LM_2 and LM_3
> 
> Fixes: 100d7ef6995d ("drm/msm/dpu: add support for SM8450")
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
> ---

Reviewed-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com>

[PATCH v5 3/4] drm/msm/dpu: enable DSPP and DSC on sc8180x

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

Enable DSPP and DSC hardware blocks on sc8180x platform.

Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
---
 .../msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_1_sc8180x.h   | 28 +++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_1_sc8180x.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_1_sc8180x.h
index c57400265f28..085db379083e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_1_sc8180x.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_5_1_sc8180x.h
@@ -102,9 +102,9 @@ static const struct dpu_sspp_cfg sc8180x_sspp[] = {
 
 static const struct dpu_lm_cfg sc8180x_lm[] = {
 	LM_BLK("lm_0", LM_0, 0x44000, MIXER_SDM845_MASK,
-		&sdm845_lm_sblk, PINGPONG_0, LM_1, 0),
+		&sdm845_lm_sblk, PINGPONG_0, LM_1, DSPP_0),
 	LM_BLK("lm_1", LM_1, 0x45000, MIXER_SDM845_MASK,
-		&sdm845_lm_sblk, PINGPONG_1, LM_0, 0),
+		&sdm845_lm_sblk, PINGPONG_1, LM_0, DSPP_1),
 	LM_BLK("lm_2", LM_2, 0x46000, MIXER_SDM845_MASK,
 		&sdm845_lm_sblk, PINGPONG_2, LM_3, 0),
 	LM_BLK("lm_3", LM_3, 0x47000, MIXER_SDM845_MASK,
@@ -115,6 +115,17 @@ static const struct dpu_lm_cfg sc8180x_lm[] = {
 		&sdm845_lm_sblk, PINGPONG_5, LM_4, 0),
 };
 
+static const struct dpu_dspp_cfg sc8180x_dspp[] = {
+	DSPP_BLK("dspp_0", DSPP_0, 0x54000, DSPP_SC7180_MASK,
+		 &sm8150_dspp_sblk),
+	DSPP_BLK("dspp_1", DSPP_1, 0x56000, DSPP_SC7180_MASK,
+		 &sm8150_dspp_sblk),
+	DSPP_BLK("dspp_2", DSPP_2, 0x58000, DSPP_SC7180_MASK,
+		 &sm8150_dspp_sblk),
+	DSPP_BLK("dspp_3", DSPP_3, 0x5a000, DSPP_SC7180_MASK,
+		 &sm8150_dspp_sblk),
+};
+
 static const struct dpu_pingpong_cfg sc8180x_pp[] = {
 	PP_BLK_TE("pingpong_0", PINGPONG_0, 0x70000, MERGE_3D_0, sdm845_pp_sblk_te,
 			DPU_IRQ_IDX(MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 8),
@@ -142,6 +153,15 @@ static const struct dpu_merge_3d_cfg sc8180x_merge_3d[] = {
 	MERGE_3D_BLK("merge_3d_2", MERGE_3D_2, 0x83200),
 };
 
+static const struct dpu_dsc_cfg sc8180x_dsc[] = {
+	DSC_BLK("dsc_0", DSC_0, 0x80000, BIT(DPU_DSC_OUTPUT_CTRL)),
+	DSC_BLK("dsc_1", DSC_1, 0x80400, BIT(DPU_DSC_OUTPUT_CTRL)),
+	DSC_BLK("dsc_2", DSC_2, 0x80800, BIT(DPU_DSC_OUTPUT_CTRL)),
+	DSC_BLK("dsc_3", DSC_3, 0x80c00, BIT(DPU_DSC_OUTPUT_CTRL)),
+	DSC_BLK("dsc_4", DSC_4, 0x81000, BIT(DPU_DSC_OUTPUT_CTRL)),
+	DSC_BLK("dsc_5", DSC_5, 0x81400, BIT(DPU_DSC_OUTPUT_CTRL)),
+};
+
 static const struct dpu_intf_cfg sc8180x_intf[] = {
 	INTF_BLK("intf_0", INTF_0, 0x6a000, 0x280, INTF_DP, MSM_DP_CONTROLLER_0, 24, INTF_SC7180_MASK, MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 24, 25),
 	INTF_BLK("intf_1", INTF_1, 0x6a800, 0x2bc, INTF_DSI, 0, 24, INTF_SC7180_MASK, MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 26, 27),
@@ -190,6 +210,10 @@ const struct dpu_mdss_cfg dpu_sc8180x_cfg = {
 	.sspp = sc8180x_sspp,
 	.mixer_count = ARRAY_SIZE(sc8180x_lm),
 	.mixer = sc8180x_lm,
+	.dspp_count = ARRAY_SIZE(sc8180x_dspp),
+	.dspp = sc8180x_dspp,
+	.dsc_count = ARRAY_SIZE(sc8180x_dsc),
+	.dsc = sc8180x_dsc,
 	.pingpong_count = ARRAY_SIZE(sc8180x_pp),
 	.pingpong = sc8180x_pp,
 	.merge_3d_count = ARRAY_SIZE(sc8180x_merge_3d),
-- 
2.39.2

Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] drm/msm/dpu: enable DSPP and DSC on sc8180x

[Abhinav Kumar]

On 4/7/2023 5:27 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> Enable DSPP and DSC hardware blocks on sc8180x platform.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
> ---

Reviewed-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com>

[PATCH v5 4/4] drm/msm/dpu: use CTL_SC7280_MASK for sm8450's ctl_0

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On sm8450 platform the CTL_0 doesn't differ from the rest of CTL blocks,
so switch it to CTL_SC7280_MASK too.

Some background: original commit 100d7ef6995d ("drm/msm/dpu: add support
for SM8450") had all (relevant at that time) bit spelled individually.
Then commit 0e91bcbb0016 ("drm/msm/dpu: Add SM8350 to hw catalog"),
despite being a mismerge, correctly changed all other CTL entries to use
CTL_SC7280_MASK, except CTL_0.

While the current BLOCK_SOC_MASK style is not ideal (and while we are
working on a better scheme), let's follow its usage as a least minimal
surprise. For example, sc8280xp, a close associate of sm8450, also uses
CTL_SC7280_MASK.

Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_1_sm8450.h | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_1_sm8450.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_1_sm8450.h
index e111ca1f4bf5..221358b9892e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_1_sm8450.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/catalog/dpu_8_1_sm8450.h
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ static const struct dpu_ctl_cfg sm8450_ctl[] = {
 	{
 	.name = "ctl_0", .id = CTL_0,
 	.base = 0x15000, .len = 0x204,
-	.features = BIT(DPU_CTL_ACTIVE_CFG) | BIT(DPU_CTL_SPLIT_DISPLAY) | BIT(DPU_CTL_FETCH_ACTIVE),
+	.features = BIT(DPU_CTL_SPLIT_DISPLAY) | CTL_SC7280_MASK,
 	.intr_start = DPU_IRQ_IDX(MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR2, 9),
 	},
 	{
-- 
2.39.2

Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] drm/msm/dpu: use CTL_SC7280_MASK for sm8450's ctl_0

[Abhinav Kumar]

On 4/7/2023 5:27 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On sm8450 platform the CTL_0 doesn't differ from the rest of CTL blocks,
> so switch it to CTL_SC7280_MASK too.
> 
> Some background: original commit 100d7ef6995d ("drm/msm/dpu: add support
> for SM8450") had all (relevant at that time) bit spelled individually.
> Then commit 0e91bcbb0016 ("drm/msm/dpu: Add SM8350 to hw catalog"),
> despite being a mismerge, correctly changed all other CTL entries to use
> CTL_SC7280_MASK, except CTL_0.
> 
> While the current BLOCK_SOC_MASK style is not ideal (and while we are
> working on a better scheme), let's follow its usage as a least minimal
> surprise. For example, sc8280xp, a close associate of sm8450, also uses
> CTL_SC7280_MASK.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
> ---

Although I dont totally agree with this, but because sc8280xp also uses 
the same, I am fine.


Reviewed-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com>

But either we need to work on a better scheme or expand the macros but 
not duplicate these for the next chipset which gets added.

Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] drm/msm/dpu: use CTL_SC7280_MASK for sm8450's ctl_0

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On 11/04/2023 03:57, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/7/2023 5:27 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> On sm8450 platform the CTL_0 doesn't differ from the rest of CTL blocks,
>> so switch it to CTL_SC7280_MASK too.
>>
>> Some background: original commit 100d7ef6995d ("drm/msm/dpu: add support
>> for SM8450") had all (relevant at that time) bit spelled individually.
>> Then commit 0e91bcbb0016 ("drm/msm/dpu: Add SM8350 to hw catalog"),
>> despite being a mismerge, correctly changed all other CTL entries to use
>> CTL_SC7280_MASK, except CTL_0.
>>
>> While the current BLOCK_SOC_MASK style is not ideal (and while we are
>> working on a better scheme), let's follow its usage as a least minimal
>> surprise. For example, sc8280xp, a close associate of sm8450, also uses
>> CTL_SC7280_MASK.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
>> ---
> 
> Although I dont totally agree with this, but because sc8280xp also uses 
> the same, I am fine.
> 
> 
> Reviewed-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com>
> 
> But either we need to work on a better scheme or expand the macros but 
> not duplicate these for the next chipset which gets added.

Yes. I'm also holding the rest of MASK renaming patches for now.

I'd like to the following major items finalized and merged (probably a 
goal for 6.5):

- INTF_TE restructure
- QSEED3/4 refactoring
- Proper support for active CTLs (wip), removing the need for 
DPU_CTL_SPLIT_DISPLAY on sm8150+
- Pending platforms (2 from 6.x, one from 5.x, hopefully one from 4.x 
too, 3.x if possible). Hopefully this will also include more platforms 
from recent DPU generations (8.x, 9.x)
- Ideally: also sort out max SSPP line widths for VIG vs DMA

I think that after this we can return to the question of platform 
similarities and differences.

Anyway, with the current msm-next + this patchset we should have a 
catalog which one can expand without fearing about conflicts or 
incorrect data duplication.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry