On 5/15/25 7:15 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2025 at 19:36, Konrad Dybcio
> <konrad.dyb...@oss.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 5/15/25 6:21 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On 15/05/2025 19:18, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/25 10:33 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>> On 14/05/2025 23:05, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/25 9:23 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 05:10:33PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>>>>> From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dyb...@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The value of 7 (a.k.a. GENMASK(2, 0), a.k.a. disabling levels 1-3 of
>>>>>>>> swizzling) is what we want on this platform (and others with a UBWC
>>>>>>>> 1.0 encoder).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fix it to make mesa happy (the hardware doesn't care about the 2 higher
>>>>>>>> bits, as they weren't consumed on this platform).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dyb...@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> drivers/soc/qcom/ubwc_config.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/ubwc_config.c
>>>>>>>> b/drivers/soc/qcom/ubwc_config.c
>>>>>>>> index
>>>>>>>> 9caecd071035ccb03f14464e9b7129ba34a7f862..96b94cf01218cce2dacdba22c7573ba6148fcdd1
>>>>>>>> 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/ubwc_config.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/ubwc_config.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ static const struct qcom_ubwc_cfg_data sm6115_data
>>>>>>>> = {
>>>>>>>> static const struct qcom_ubwc_cfg_data sm6125_data = {
>>>>>>>> .ubwc_enc_version = UBWC_1_0,
>>>>>>>> .ubwc_dec_version = UBWC_3_0,
>>>>>>>> - .ubwc_swizzle = 1,
>>>>>>>> + .ubwc_swizzle = 7,
>>>>>>>> .highest_bank_bit = 14,
>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Add a comment and squash into the patch 1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think that's a good idea, plus this series should be merged
>>>>>> together anyway
>>>>>
>>>>> Well... Granted Rob's comment, I really think the patches should be
>>>>> reordered a bit:
>>>>>
>>>>> - MDSS: offset HBB by 13 (patch 2)
>>>>> - switch drm/msm/mdss and display to common DB (patches 1+3 squashed)
>>>>> - get a handle (patch 4)
>>>>> - resolve / simplify (patches 5-10, not squashed)
>>>>> - fix sm6125 (patch 13)
>>>>> - WARN_ON (swizzle != swizzle) or (HBB != HBB)
>>>>> - switch to common R/O config, keeping WARN_ON for the calculated values
>>>>> (with the hope to drop them after testing)
>>>>
>>>> Does this bring any functional benefit? This series is unfun to remix
>>>
>>> I know the pain.
>>>
>>> The functional benefit is to have the WARN_ON and side-by-side comparison
>>> of common_ubwc_config vs computed ubwc_config for HBB and swizzle.
>>
>> HBB I agree, since we'll be outsourcing it to yet another driver, swizzle
>> should be good enough (tm) - I scanned through the values in the driver
>> and couldn't find anything wrong just by eye
>
> Well. What is the ubwc_swizzle value used for SDM845? I think it
> should be 6 according to a6xx_gpu.c and 0 according to msm_mdss.c.
> Yes, higher bits are most likely ignored. Still, we'd better have one
> correct value.
Ehh, so laziness bites after all..
Unfortunately it seems like I don't have a good answer for you
- although I can infer a technically valid config for these
at the very least:
msm8937
msm8998
sc8180x
sdm670
sdm845
sm6150
sm7150
sm8150
with the ubwc1.0 platforms receiving all 3 levels and ubwc 2.0/
3.0 enabling 2/3
this however I'm not sure matches what downstream does..
Konrad
