On Mon, 12 Aug 2024, Dnyaneshwar Bhadane <[email protected]> wrote: > New entries updated in BDB defination from VBT v257- v260.
*definition Please explain what you're adding. Also, the spec never ceases to amaze me. Like here, adding stuff for a few revisions, obsoleting and starting over. Ugh. > Signed-off-by: Dnyaneshwar Bhadane <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vbt_defs.h | 35 ++++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vbt_defs.h > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vbt_defs.h > index e613288937e4..65342f347bba 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vbt_defs.h > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vbt_defs.h > @@ -1080,6 +1080,8 @@ struct bdb_edp { > u16 edp_fast_link_training_rate[16]; /* 224+ */ > u16 edp_max_port_link_rate[16]; /* 244+ */ > u16 edp_dsc_disable; /* 251+ */ > + u16 t16_delay; /* 260+ */ Please let's follow the spec in member naming where feasible. This would be t6_delay_support. > + u16 t16_link_idle_time; /* 260+ */ And this would be u16 link_idle_time[16]. The size is 32 bytes, not 2. (Where does t16 come from?) > } __packed; > > /* > @@ -1330,12 +1332,27 @@ struct aggressiveness_profile2_entry { > u8 elp_aggressiveness : 4; > } __packed; > > +struct aggressiveness_profile3_entry { > + u8 adp_aggressiveness:4; apd_aggressiveness > + u8 po_aggressiveness:4; pixoptix_aggressiveness > +} __packed; > + > +struct aggressiveness_profile4_entry { > + u8 xpst_aggressiveness:4; > + u8 tcon_aggressiveness:4; > +} __packed; > + > +struct panel_identification { > + u8 panel_type:4; panel_type is a loaded word in VBT. Let's avoid it. Maybe panel_technology or something. > + u8 reserved:4; > +} __packed; > + > struct bdb_lfp_power { > struct lfp_power_features features; /* > ???-227 */ > struct als_data_entry als[5]; > u8 lace_aggressiveness_profile:3; /* > 210-227 */ > u8 reserved1:5; > - u16 dpst; /* 228+ > */ > + u16 dpst; /* > 228-256 */ > u16 psr; /* 228+ > */ > u16 drrs; /* 228+ > */ > u16 lace_support; /* 228+ > */ > @@ -1343,12 +1360,20 @@ struct bdb_lfp_power { > u16 dmrrs; /* 228+ > */ > u16 adb; /* 228+ > */ > u16 lace_enabled_status; /* 228+ > */ > - struct aggressiveness_profile_entry aggressiveness[16]; /* 228+ > */ > + struct aggressiveness_profile_entry aggressiveness[16]; /* > 228-256 */ The LACE agressiveness is still valid. Please add the comment to struct aggressiveness_profile dpst_aggressiveness member. > u16 hobl; /* 232+ > */ > u16 vrr_feature_enabled; /* 233+ > */ > - u16 elp; /* 247+ > */ > - u16 opst; /* 247+ > */ > - struct aggressiveness_profile2_entry aggressiveness2[16]; /* 247+ > */ > + u16 elp; /* > 247-256 */ > + u16 opst; /* > 247-256 */ > + struct aggressiveness_profile2_entry aggressiveness2[16]; /* > 247-256 */ > + u16 adp; /* > 253-256 */ apd > + u16 po; /* > 253-256 */ pixoptix > + struct aggressiveness_profile3_entry aggressiveness3[16]; /* > 253-256 */ > + struct panel_identification panel_identity[16]; /* 257+ > */ panel_identification > + u16 xpst; /* 257+ > */ xpst_support > + u16 tcon; /* 257+ > */ tcon_based_backlight_optimization > + struct aggressiveness_profile4_entry aggressiveness4[16]; /* 257+ > */ > + u16 tcon_coexist_xpst; /* 257+ > */ Hrmh, this is where the member naming in spec is not feasible. Maybe tcon_xpst_coexistence. > } __packed; > > /* -- Jani Nikula, Intel
