On 2018-10-10 07:29, Sean Paul wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 10:46:41PM -0700, Jeykumar Sankaran wrote:
On 2018-10-09 11:07, Sean Paul wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:27:18PM -0700, Jeykumar Sankaran wrote:
> > Layer mixer/pingpong block counts and hw ctl block counts
> > will not be same for all the topologies (e.g. layer
> > mixer muxing to single interface)
> >
> > Use the encoder's split_role info to retrieve the
> > respective control path for programming.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jeykumar Sankaran <jsa...@codeaurora.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_encoder.c | 9 ++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_encoder.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_encoder.c
> > index 96cdf06..d12f896 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_encoder.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_encoder.c
> > @@ -1060,6 +1060,7 @@ static void dpu_encoder_virt_mode_set(struct
> drm_encoder *drm_enc,
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < dpu_enc->num_phys_encs; i++) {
> > struct dpu_encoder_phys *phys = dpu_enc->phys_encs[i];
> > + int ctl_index;
> >
> > if (phys) {
> > if (!dpu_enc->hw_pp[i]) {
> > @@ -1068,14 +1069,16 @@ static void dpu_encoder_virt_mode_set(struct
> drm_encoder *drm_enc,
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > - if (!hw_ctl[i]) {
> > + ctl_index = phys->split_role == ENC_ROLE_SLAVE ? 1
> : 0;
> > +
>
> What if MAX_CHANNELS_PER_ENC isn't 2? Similarly, what if num_phys_encs
> MAX_CHANNELS_PER_ENC? It seems like there should be a more formal
> relationship
> between all of these verious values (num_of_h_tiles assumed to be <= 2
> as
> well).
> If one of them changes beyond the assumed bound, the rest of the
driver
> falls
> over pretty hard.
>
MAX_CHANNELS_PER_ENC is set to 2 to represent HW limitation on the
chipset
as
we cannot gang up more than 2 LM chain to an interface. Supporting
more
than
2
might demand much larger changes than validating for boundaries.
num_phys_enc is the max no of phys encoders we create as we are
looping
through
num_of_h_tiles which cannot be more than priv->dsi array size.
So its very unlikely we would expect these loops to go out of bound!
For now, sure. However a new revision of hardware will be a pain to add
support
for if we add more assumptions, and secondly it makes it _really_ hard
to
understand the code if you don't have Qualcomm employee-level access to
the
hardware design :).
I am having a hard time understanding why you have to see these counts
as
"assumptions".
Except for MAX_CHANNELS_PER_ENC, all the other counts are either
calculated
or derived from the other modules linked to the topology.
h_tiles is the drm_connector terminology which represents the number of
panels
the display is driving. We use this information to determine the HW
block chains in the MDP. HW blocks counts (pp or ctl) need not be same
as the h_tile count to replace them with.
I believe maintaining the counts independently at each layer allows us
to have more
flexibility to support independent HW chaining for future revisions.
Would it be more convincing if I get the MAX_CHANNELS_PER_ENC value from
catalog.c?
So this is why I'm advocating for the reduction of the number of
"num_of_"
values we assume are all in the same range. It's a lot easier to
understand the
hardware when you can see that a phys encoder is needed per h tile, and
that a
ctl/pp is needed per phys encoder.
This is exactly the idea I don't want to convey to the reader. For the
LM merge path,
each phys encoder will not be having its own control. Based on the
topology we
are supporting, HW block counts can vary. We can even drive:
- 2 interfaces with 1 ctl and 1 ping pong
- 1 interface with 1 ctl and 2 ping pongs
- 1 interface with 1 ctl and 1 ping pong
Thanks,
Jeykumar S.
Anyways, just my $0.02.
Sean
Thanks,
Jeykumar S.
>
> > + if (!hw_ctl[ctl_index]) {
> > DPU_ERROR_ENC(dpu_enc, "no ctl block
> assigned"
> > - "at idx: %d\n", i);
> > + "at idx: %d\n", ctl_index);
> > return;
>
> When you return on error here, should you give back the resources that
> you've
> already provisioned?
>
> > }
> >
> > phys->hw_pp = dpu_enc->hw_pp[i];
> > - phys->hw_ctl = hw_ctl[i];
> > + phys->hw_ctl = hw_ctl[ctl_index];
> >
> > phys->connector = conn->state->connector;
> > if (phys->ops.mode_set)
> > --
> > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
> Forum,
> > a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Freedreno mailing list
> > freedr...@lists.freedesktop.org
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/freedreno
--
Jeykumar S
--
Jeykumar S
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
