On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 at 14:10, Konrad Dybcio <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 11/17/25 12:51 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 at 13:25, Konrad Dybcio > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On 11/15/25 4:08 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >>> IGT reported test failures with Gamma correction block on SC7180. > >>> Disable GC subblock on SC7180 until we trage the issue. > >>> > >>> Cc: Federico Amedeo Izzo <[email protected]> > >>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <[email protected]> > >>> --- > >>> Most likely I will squash this into the GC patch > >>> --- > >> > >> Peeking at downstream, 7180 and 845 should have the exact same GC > >> (v1.8).. it seems like there's an attempt to program it through > >> REGDMA instead of regular reg access. Not sure if it's actually > >> necessary or just an optimization > > > > I think it's mostly an optimization. > > > >> What tests are exactly failing? I couldn't track it down on FDO GL > > > > See [1] and other failed SC7180 jobs from the same pipeline. I haven't > > triaged it yet, but I assume this might be related to platform > > resources (it has only 2 LM blocks and only 1 DSPP). > > Another possibility is that maybe we need higher CFG bus bandwidth > > when writing LUT registers. > > > > [1] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/87878393 > > [email protected] fails, we get an ENAVAIL (-119) (which doesn't > seem like a good return value for this error but anyway..), dmesg says > > 05:42:13.199: [ 75.472174] [drm:_dpu_rm_check_lm_and_get_connected_blks] > [dpu error]failed to get dspp on lm 0 > 05:42:13.199: [ 75.481487] [drm:_dpu_rm_make_reservation] [dpu error]unable > to find appropriate mixers > 05:42:13.199: [ 75.490235] [drm:dpu_rm_reserve] [dpu error]failed to > reserve hw resources: -119 > > which comes from: > > idx = lm_cfg->dspp - DSPP_0; > if (idx < 0 || idx >= ARRAY_SIZE(rm->dspp_blks)) { > // misleading error message, it's not LM%d, but DSPP%d > DPU_ERROR("failed to get dspp on lm %d\n", lm_cfg->dspp); > return false; > } > > which comes from: > > static const struct dpu_lm_cfg sc7180_lm[] = { > { > .name = "lm_0", .id = LM_0, > .base = 0x44000, .len = 0x320, > .features = MIXER_MSM8998_MASK, > .sblk = &sc7180_lm_sblk, > .lm_pair = LM_1, > .pingpong = PINGPONG_0, > .dspp = DSPP_0, > }, { > .name = "lm_1", .id = LM_1, > .base = 0x45000, .len = 0x320, > .features = MIXER_MSM8998_MASK, > .sblk = &sc7180_lm_sblk, > .lm_pair = LM_0, > .pingpong = PINGPONG_1, > // no dspp here, errors out > }, > }; > > would simply binding .dspp = DSPP_0 to the other one just work here?
Only LM_0 can use DSPP_0, that part is not flexible. > Also, would that mean we can only have gamma control on a single active > LM at a time? We can only control gamma on LM_0 on this platform. BTW, the other log is more interesting: [3] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/87895515/viewer -- With best wishes Dmitry
