All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Cc: Kalyan Thota <quic_kalyant@quicinc.com>,
	<freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org>, Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run>,
	"Bjorn Andersson" <andersson@kernel.org>,
	<dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"Stephen Boyd" <swboyd@chromium.org>,
	Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
	<linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>, David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH v3 27/27] drm/msm/dpu: add support for wide planes
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2023 14:12:37 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <396c388b-de81-6794-d846-636234f1edb0@quicinc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA8EJppHhd5WSqOsz5tfW0zwyqevZgYANHhg8Yqwvr4X3jZ65A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Dmitry

On 2/9/2023 1:23 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> Hi Abhinav,
> 
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 21:25, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/9/2023 3:45 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 04:19, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/3/2023 10:21 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>> Typically SSPP can support rectangle with width up to 2560. However it's
>>>>
>>>> Not always 2560. Depends on the chipset.
>>>
>>> _typically_
>>>
>>
>> Would just say maxlinewidth of SSPP instead of giving some hardcoded number.
> 
> Ack.
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>>> possible to use multirect feature and split source to use the SSPP to
>>>>> output two consecutive rectangles. This commit brings in this capability
>>>>> to support wider screen resolutions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_crtc.c  |   6 ++
>>>>>     drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.c | 116 +++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>>     drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.h |   4 +
>>>>>     3 files changed, 114 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_crtc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_crtc.c
>>>>> index 0ca3bc38ff7e..867832a752b2 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_crtc.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_crtc.c
>>>>> @@ -485,6 +485,12 @@ static void _dpu_crtc_blend_setup_mixer(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
>>>>>                                            fetch_active,
>>>>>                                            &pstate->pipe);
>>>>>
>>>>> +             _dpu_crtc_blend_setup_pipe(crtc, plane,
>>>>> +                                        mixer, cstate->num_mixers,
>>>>> +                                        stage_cfg, pstate->stage, 1,
>>>>> +                                        fetch_active,
>>>>> +                                        &pstate->r_pipe);
>>>>> +
>>>>>                 /* blend config update */
>>>>>                 for (lm_idx = 0; lm_idx < cstate->num_mixers; lm_idx++) {
>>>>>                         _dpu_crtc_setup_blend_cfg(mixer + lm_idx, pstate, format);
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.c
>>>>> index e2e85688ed3c..401ead64c6bd 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.c
>>>>> @@ -365,6 +365,9 @@ static void _dpu_plane_set_qos_ctrl(struct drm_plane *plane,
>>>>>         struct dpu_plane *pdpu = to_dpu_plane(plane);
>>>>>         struct dpu_hw_pipe_qos_cfg pipe_qos_cfg;
>>>>>
>>>>> +     if (!pipe->sspp)
>>>>> +             return;
>>>>> +
>>>>>         memset(&pipe_qos_cfg, 0, sizeof(pipe_qos_cfg));
>>>>>
>>>>>         if (flags & DPU_PLANE_QOS_VBLANK_CTRL) {
>>>>> @@ -647,6 +650,9 @@ static int _dpu_plane_color_fill_pipe(struct dpu_plane_state *pstate,
>>>>>     {
>>>>>         struct dpu_hw_sspp_cfg pipe_cfg;
>>>>>
>>>>> +     if (!pipe->sspp)
>>>>> +             return 0;
>>>>
>>>> instead of checking if sspp was present, is it not better for the caller
>>>> to check if the rpipe is valid before calling this?
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>>         /* update sspp */
>>>>>         if (!pipe->sspp->ops.setup_solidfill)
>>>>>                 return 0;
>>>>> @@ -701,6 +707,8 @@ static void _dpu_plane_color_fill(struct dpu_plane *pdpu,
>>>>>
>>>>>         /* update sspp */
>>>>>         _dpu_plane_color_fill_pipe(pstate, &pstate->pipe, &pstate->pipe_cfg, fill_color, fmt);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +     _dpu_plane_color_fill_pipe(pstate, &pstate->r_pipe, &pstate->r_pipe_cfg, fill_color, fmt);
>>>>>     }
>>>>
>>>> So cant we do
>>>>
>>>> if (pstate->r_pipe.sspp)
>>>>           _dpu_plane_color_fill_pipe(pstate, &pstate->r_pipe,
>>>>                   &pstate->r_pipe_cfg, fill_color, fmt);
>>>>
>>>> It just seems better to me as the caller would already know if the sspp
>>>> was assigned.
>>>
>>>    I think I had this kind of code earlier, but then I found it more
>>> logical to move the check to the called function. I'll move it back.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     int dpu_plane_validate_multirect_v2(struct dpu_multirect_plane_states *plane)
>>>>> @@ -911,6 +919,9 @@ static int dpu_plane_atomic_check_pipe(struct dpu_plane *pdpu,
>>>>>     {
>>>>>         uint32_t min_src_size;
>>>>>
>>>>> +     if (!pipe->sspp)
>>>>> +             return 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>>         min_src_size = DPU_FORMAT_IS_YUV(fmt) ? 2 : 1;
>>>>>
>>>>>         if (DPU_FORMAT_IS_YUV(fmt) &&
>>>>> @@ -957,9 +968,12 @@ static int dpu_plane_atomic_check(struct drm_plane *plane,
>>>>>         int ret = 0, min_scale;
>>>>>         struct dpu_plane *pdpu = to_dpu_plane(plane);
>>>>>         struct dpu_plane_state *pstate = to_dpu_plane_state(new_plane_state);
>>>>> +     struct dpu_sw_pipe *pipe = &pstate->pipe;
>>>>> +     struct dpu_sw_pipe *r_pipe = &pstate->r_pipe;
>>>>>         const struct drm_crtc_state *crtc_state = NULL;
>>>>>         const struct dpu_format *fmt;
>>>>>         struct dpu_hw_sspp_cfg *pipe_cfg = &pstate->pipe_cfg;
>>>>> +     struct dpu_hw_sspp_cfg *r_pipe_cfg = &pstate->r_pipe_cfg;
>>>>>         struct drm_rect fb_rect = { 0 };
>>>>>         uint32_t max_linewidth;
>>>>>         unsigned int rotation;
>>>>> @@ -983,8 +997,11 @@ static int dpu_plane_atomic_check(struct drm_plane *plane,
>>>>>         if (!new_plane_state->visible)
>>>>>                 return 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> -     pstate->pipe.multirect_index = DPU_SSPP_RECT_SOLO;
>>>>> -     pstate->pipe.multirect_mode = DPU_SSPP_MULTIRECT_NONE;
>>>>> +     pipe->multirect_index = DPU_SSPP_RECT_SOLO;
>>>>> +     pipe->multirect_mode = DPU_SSPP_MULTIRECT_NONE;
>>>>> +     r_pipe->multirect_index = DPU_SSPP_RECT_SOLO;
>>>>> +     r_pipe->multirect_mode = DPU_SSPP_MULTIRECT_NONE;
>>>>> +     r_pipe->sspp = NULL;
>>>>>
>>>>>         pstate->stage = DPU_STAGE_0 + pstate->base.normalized_zpos;
>>>>>         if (pstate->stage >= pdpu->catalog->caps->max_mixer_blendstages) {
>>>>> @@ -1016,16 +1033,53 @@ static int dpu_plane_atomic_check(struct drm_plane *plane,
>>>>>
>>>>>         max_linewidth = pdpu->catalog->caps->max_linewidth;
>>>>>
>>>>> -     /* check decimated source width */
>>>>>         if (drm_rect_width(&pipe_cfg->src_rect) > max_linewidth) {
>>>>> -             DPU_DEBUG_PLANE(pdpu, "invalid src " DRM_RECT_FMT " line:%u\n",
>>>>> -                             DRM_RECT_ARG(&pipe_cfg->src_rect), max_linewidth);
>>>>> -             return -E2BIG;
>>>>> +             /* struct dpu_crtc_state *cstate = to_dpu_crtc_state(crtc_state); */
>>>>> +
>>>>> +             if (drm_rect_width(&pipe_cfg->src_rect) > 2 * max_linewidth) {
>>>>> +                     DPU_DEBUG_PLANE(pdpu, "invalid src " DRM_RECT_FMT " line:%u\n",
>>>>> +                                     DRM_RECT_ARG(&pipe_cfg->src_rect), max_linewidth);
>>>>> +                     return -E2BIG;
>>>>> +             }
>>>>
>>>> This is where I am a bit concerned enabling it for all chipsets in one go.
>>>
>>> As I wrote earlier, I'd prefer the opt-out rather than opt-in here. It
>>> is much easier to handle the reports "I have a device with sm6543,
>>> where the display worked before 6.4, but started failing afterwards"
>>> rather than trying to find a person with sm6543 and asking him if he
>>> can enable this and that on his device. And even a lower chance of a
>>> person with sm6543 coming up with a patch 'hey, I enabled this for my
>>> phone and it works!'.
>>>
>>> If we find any issues during or close to the end of the development
>>> cycle, we can add a 'don't enable wide plane here' switch and enable
>>> it for failing platforms. But each enablement of this switch should
>>> come with a reason (wide planes not working here because ....). In the
>>> end this switch should be gone and transformed into proper HW
>>> limitation checks.
>>>
>>
>> As it has become clear that with this patch series 4K with UBWC cannot
>> be supported without true virtual planes (with two SSPPs), why do you
>> need to relax this check right now?
> 
> Yes. It enables support for 4k @ linear formats. So my plan for this
> series is to land 4k with all the proper applicable restrictions.
> 
>> You can relax this when you add the support for virtual planes till then
>> let it be this way.
>>
>> Its not going to break smartDMA as such. You can still use it for layers
>> < 2560.
>>
>> That way we stay true to the purpose of the feature. I think originally
>> you wanted to get this in for smartDMA and not to support wide plane and
>> that purpose will still be achieved even with keeping this check intact.
> 
> Actually, no. With this series I wanted to get 4k. It was developed in
> parallel with the 4k enablement for RB3 (posted, bridge patches are
> being merged for 6.3) and RB5 (delayed for now, I have other issues
> there).
> 

With the UBWC related checks, this wont support 4K for UBWC layers which 
is default on QC chipsets. So I am fine with respect to that. But still 
this does not address the product spec advertized modes. Like I 
mentioned before, relaxing the maxlinewidth check with the added UBWC 
checks is fine from DPU point of view but not from the product POV.

As things stand today, this is the only check failing the 4K modes on 
chipsets which shouldnt support 4k (linear or UBWC doesnt matter).

>> You can relax it in the virtual plane series.
>>
>> Regarding issues, this is where it gets tricky. We should be aligning
>> with what the product supports. QC will not support issues arising with
>> 4K on chipsets on which 4K is not advertized.
> 
> So, we have several different items here:
> - SmartDMA v2 per se, supporting two rectangles per VIG or DMA plane,
> - Source split support,
> - Supporting 4k modes.
> 
> I think we should tend them one by one. This series concerns SmartDMA
> v2. Using SmartDMA it is possible to use two rectangles side by side
> to emulate a wide plane. This series doesn't care at all about max
> resolutions. These two items are completely orthogonal.
> 

No its not orthogonal. Relaxing the maxlinewidth check in the 
atomic_check() will allow 4K layers now even on chipsets where 4K wasnt 
advertized. Linear or UBWC doesnt matter as the spec doesnt go into that.

>>>> As you are aware,  we have an open bug today that we do not filter out
>>>> the modes which we do not support.
>>>>
>>>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/issues/21
>>>
>>> I thought that with the link-frequencies in place and with the DSI
>>> checking the OPP tables this issue is mostly handled. Isn't it?
>>> Is a mode check in the DPU driver itself the last missing piece?
>>>
>>
>> opp based checking was implemented only for DSI. That one is byte clk based.
>>
>> DP uses link rate for opp table.
>>
>> Even with a 5.4G link rate (the one in sc7180 chromebook) 4k@30 would
>> still be possible but it was not advertized
>>
>> https://www.qualcomm.com/content/dam/qcomm-martech/dm-assets/documents/prod_brief_qcom_sd7c.pdf
>>
>> These docs are available in public domain.
>>
>> As we synced up last time on
>> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/107917/, even with these limits
>> in place, its not matching the advertized limits.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Due to this, on all chipsets we will end up trying to do a 4K on
>>>> external display which we dont know what bugs it will expose.
>>>
>>> If we do not expose bugs, we do not have a way to fix them. And I
>>> definitely think that all the bugs should be listed as early as
>>> possible, while both of us still remember the code under the question.
>>>
>>
>> Yes but on chipsets where 4K is supported ( and hence needed ).
> 
> 4k, SmartDMA, src-split, split-display, etc.
> 

The visual issues reported on sdm845 on the other thread are a classic 
example of what I just wrote on that patchset and thats why I was 
emphasizing a visual validation OR in other words enable the feature on 
which you are able to visually validate it.

We can evaluate and enable smartDMA on other chipsets on a need basis.

We discussed this again even today in the team discussion. Our team's 
PoV doesnt change. We would still like to enable smartDMA only on 
chipsets which can be visually validated first to limit the debugging 
effort to one chipset first and then perfect it. Otherwise its too much 
effort on QC side to debug those issues on all chipsets.


> 
>>
>>>>
>>>> So lets say if we test it on sc7280 fully but not on sc7180, we will
>>>> still hit this condition on sc7180 too but on that chipset we did not
>>>> advertise 4K as a capability in the product spec.
>>>
>>> Is it 'not advertised' or 'not supported by hw'?
>>>
>>
>> The document
>> https://www.qualcomm.com/content/dam/qcomm-martech/dm-assets/documents/prod_brief_qcom_sd7c.pdf
>> is made from inputs from not just display team but overall system
>> limits. So even though you could argue that this falls within the
>> display capabilities, all I can say at the moment is we have to stick to
>> the advertized limits as its compiled with inputs from all the teams
>> (system/performance etc).
> 
> So, there should be a limiting factor (or a combination of them).
> Filter out 4k modes on sc7180. Or modes using fill rate higher than N.
> Pixel clock rate higher than M. But it has nothing to do with these
> patches enabling SmartDMA support on this platform.
> 
> Even if we look at the vendor kernels, we don't see 'maximum external
> resolution'. Instead I see a combination of linewidth and bandwidth
> limitations. If we can stick to that, that would be great.
> 

Can you please point me to bandwidth limitation checks? How are other 
vendors coming up with this number? It has to be based on some 
resolution too right?

My RFC https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/107917/ considered pixel 
clk as the limiting factor which was posted after discussions 
internally. In the absence of another way, that remains the only 
solution to tackle this.

>>
>>>>
>>>> With the max_linewidth check relaxed nothing prevents us from doing 4K
>>>> on a chipset which doesnt support 4K.
>>>
>>> What prevents sc7180 from supporting 4k? Does it support Smart DMA?
>>> Does it support having two LMs per INTF/CRTC? Is there a limitation on
>>> the linewidth of two LMs or two SSPPs?
>>>
>>> I see that sm7125 (which has the same DPU revision) even contains
>>> "qcom,sde-vig-sspp-linewidth = <4096>;" in the DTS, despite official
>>> 'product brief' advertising only 2520x1080 output resolution.
>>>
>>
>> My previous response should have answered this.
> 
> Up to some point, thanks.
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +             /*
>>>>> +              * FIXME: it's not possible to check if sourcesplit is supported,
>>>>> +              * LMs is not assigned yet. It happens in dpu_encoder_virt_mode_set
>>>>> +              */
>>>>> +             if (drm_rect_width(&pipe_cfg->src_rect) != drm_rect_width(&pipe_cfg->dst_rect) ||
>>>>> +                        drm_rect_height(&pipe_cfg->src_rect) != drm_rect_height(&pipe_cfg->dst_rect) ||
>>>>> +                        (!test_bit(DPU_SSPP_SMART_DMA_V1, &pipe->sspp->cap->features) &&
>>>>> +                         !test_bit(DPU_SSPP_SMART_DMA_V2, &pipe->sspp->cap->features)) ||
>>>>> +                        /* cstate->num_mixers < 2 ||
>>>>> +                        !test_bit(DPU_MIXER_SOURCESPLIT, &cstate->mixers[0].hw_lm->cap->features) || */
>>>>> +                        DPU_FORMAT_IS_YUV(fmt)) {
>>>>> +                     DPU_DEBUG_PLANE(pdpu, "invalid src " DRM_RECT_FMT " line:%u, can't use split source\n",
>>>>> +                                     DRM_RECT_ARG(&pipe_cfg->src_rect), max_linewidth);
>>>>> +                     return -E2BIG;
>>>>> +             }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +             /* Use multirect for wide plane. We do not support dynamic assignment of SSPPs, so we know the configuration. */
>>>>> +             pipe->multirect_index = DPU_SSPP_RECT_0;
>>>>> +             pipe->multirect_mode = DPU_SSPP_MULTIRECT_PARALLEL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +             r_pipe->sspp = pipe->sspp;
>>>>> +             r_pipe->multirect_index = DPU_SSPP_RECT_1;
>>>>> +             r_pipe->multirect_mode = DPU_SSPP_MULTIRECT_PARALLEL;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +             *r_pipe_cfg = *pipe_cfg;
>>>>> +             pipe_cfg->src_rect.x2 = (pipe_cfg->src_rect.x1 + pipe_cfg->src_rect.x2) >> 1;
>>>>> +             pipe_cfg->dst_rect.x2 = (pipe_cfg->dst_rect.x1 + pipe_cfg->dst_rect.x2) >> 1;
>>>>> +             r_pipe_cfg->src_rect.x1 = pipe_cfg->src_rect.x2;
>>>>> +             r_pipe_cfg->dst_rect.x1 = pipe_cfg->dst_rect.x2;
>>>>>         }
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As you requested just wanted to summarize the condition in the email.
>>>>
>>>> In parallel fetch mode, the downstream driver for UBWC formats, we check
>>>> whether the src width of each rectangle is > maxlinewidth/2
>>>>
>>>> https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/platform/vendor/opensource/display-drivers/-/blob/DISPLAY.LA.2.0.r3-00500-WAIPIO.0/msm/sde/sde_plane.c#L1835
>>>
>>> Thanks. Please double check my understanding: If the rectangle is used
>>> for the tiled format, then it's max_linewidth is effectively halved.
>>> So we can use rect_solo with full width, but for rect_0/rect_1 we
>>> should halve it, even if two rectangles are used in the time split?
>>>
>>
>> Not in time split mode. Only in parallel fetch mode which is being used
>> here. Rest of your understanding is correct.
> 
> Ack, thanks for the correction. This is important for plane checks.
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>> For sc7280, maxlinewidth is 2400
>>>>
>>>> static const struct dpu_caps sc7280_dpu_caps = {
>>>>            .max_mixer_width = DEFAULT_DPU_OUTPUT_LINE_WIDTH,
>>>>            .max_mixer_blendstages = 0x7,
>>>>            .qseed_type = DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED4,
>>>>            .smart_dma_rev = DPU_SSPP_SMART_DMA_V2,
>>>>            .ubwc_version = DPU_HW_UBWC_VER_30,
>>>>            .has_dim_layer = true,
>>>>            .has_idle_pc = true,
>>>>            .max_linewidth = 2400,
>>>>            .pixel_ram_size = DEFAULT_PIXEL_RAM_SIZE,
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> Hence for UBWC formats which are by default used on the sc7280
>>>> chromebook, each rectangle should be < 1200
>>>>
>>>> SmartDMA is therefore not enough to support 4K on sc7280 and we need
>>>> true virtual planes ( using two SSPPs to display the 4K layer )
>>>>
>>>> Also, probably worth commenting that time multiplex mode support is not
>>>> added in this series.
>>>
>>> Ack.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>         fmt = to_dpu_format(msm_framebuffer_format(new_plane_state->fb));
>>>>>
>>>>> -     ret = dpu_plane_atomic_check_pipe(pdpu, &pstate->pipe, pipe_cfg, fmt);
>>>>> +     ret = dpu_plane_atomic_check_pipe(pdpu, pipe, pipe_cfg, fmt);
>>>>> +     if (ret)
>>>>> +             return ret;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +     ret = dpu_plane_atomic_check_pipe(pdpu, r_pipe, r_pipe_cfg, fmt);
>>>>>         if (ret)
>>>>>                 return ret;
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -1094,8 +1148,10 @@ void dpu_plane_flush(struct drm_plane *plane)
>>>>>         else if (pdpu->color_fill & DPU_PLANE_COLOR_FILL_FLAG)
>>>>>                 /* force 100% alpha */
>>>>>                 _dpu_plane_color_fill(pdpu, pdpu->color_fill, 0xFF);
>>>>> -     else
>>>>> +     else {
>>>>>                 dpu_plane_flush_csc(pdpu, &pstate->pipe);
>>>>> +             dpu_plane_flush_csc(pdpu, &pstate->r_pipe);
>>>>> +     }
>>>>>
>>>>>         /* flag h/w flush complete */
>>>>>         if (plane->state)
>>>>> @@ -1130,6 +1186,9 @@ static void dpu_plane_sspp_update_pipe(struct drm_plane *plane,
>>>>>         struct drm_plane_state *state = plane->state;
>>>>>         struct dpu_plane_state *pstate = to_dpu_plane_state(state);
>>>>>
>>>>> +     if (!pipe->sspp)
>>>>> +             return;
>>>>> +
>>>>>         if (layout && pipe->sspp->ops.setup_sourceaddress) {
>>>>>                 trace_dpu_plane_set_scanout(pipe, layout);
>>>>>                 pipe->sspp->ops.setup_sourceaddress(pipe, layout);
>>>>> @@ -1207,13 +1266,14 @@ static void dpu_plane_sspp_atomic_update(struct drm_plane *plane)
>>>>>         struct drm_plane_state *state = plane->state;
>>>>>         struct dpu_plane_state *pstate = to_dpu_plane_state(state);
>>>>>         struct dpu_sw_pipe *pipe = &pstate->pipe;
>>>>> +     struct dpu_sw_pipe *r_pipe = &pstate->r_pipe;
>>>>>         struct drm_crtc *crtc = state->crtc;
>>>>>         struct drm_framebuffer *fb = state->fb;
>>>>>         bool is_rt_pipe;
>>>>>         const struct dpu_format *fmt =
>>>>>                 to_dpu_format(msm_framebuffer_format(fb));
>>>>>         struct dpu_hw_sspp_cfg *pipe_cfg = &pstate->pipe_cfg;
>>>>> -
>>>>> +     struct dpu_hw_sspp_cfg *r_pipe_cfg = &pstate->r_pipe_cfg;
>>>>>         struct dpu_kms *kms = _dpu_plane_get_kms(&pdpu->base);
>>>>>         struct msm_gem_address_space *aspace = kms->base.aspace;
>>>>>         struct dpu_hw_fmt_layout layout;
>>>>> @@ -1241,12 +1301,22 @@ static void dpu_plane_sspp_atomic_update(struct drm_plane *plane)
>>>>>                                    drm_mode_vrefresh(&crtc->mode),
>>>>>                                    layout_valid ? &layout: NULL);
>>>>>
>>>>> +     dpu_plane_sspp_update_pipe(plane, r_pipe, r_pipe_cfg, fmt,
>>>>> +                                drm_mode_vrefresh(&crtc->mode),
>>>>> +                                layout_valid ? &layout: NULL);
>>>>> +
>>>>>         if (pstate->needs_qos_remap)
>>>>>                 pstate->needs_qos_remap = false;
>>>>>
>>>>>         pstate->plane_fetch_bw = _dpu_plane_calc_bw(pdpu->catalog, fmt, &crtc->mode, pipe_cfg);
>>>>>
>>>>>         pstate->plane_clk = _dpu_plane_calc_clk(&crtc->mode, pipe_cfg);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +     if (r_pipe->sspp) {
>>>>> +             pstate->plane_fetch_bw += _dpu_plane_calc_bw(pdpu->catalog, fmt, &crtc->mode, r_pipe_cfg);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +             pstate->plane_clk = max(pstate->plane_clk, _dpu_plane_calc_clk(&crtc->mode, r_pipe_cfg));
>>>>> +     }
>>>>>     }
>>>>>
>>>>>     static void _dpu_plane_atomic_disable(struct drm_plane *plane)
>>>>> @@ -1289,6 +1359,8 @@ static void dpu_plane_destroy(struct drm_plane *plane)
>>>>>                 pstate = to_dpu_plane_state(plane->state);
>>>>>                 _dpu_plane_set_qos_ctrl(plane, &pstate->pipe, false, DPU_PLANE_QOS_PANIC_CTRL);
>>>>>
>>>>> +             _dpu_plane_set_qos_ctrl(plane, &pstate->r_pipe, false, DPU_PLANE_QOS_PANIC_CTRL);
>>>>> +
>>>>>                 mutex_destroy(&pdpu->lock);
>>>>>
>>>>>                 /* this will destroy the states as well */
>>>>> @@ -1369,11 +1441,26 @@ static void dpu_plane_atomic_print_state(struct drm_printer *p,
>>>>>                 const struct drm_plane_state *state)
>>>>>     {
>>>>>         const struct dpu_plane_state *pstate = to_dpu_plane_state(state);
>>>>> +     const struct dpu_sw_pipe *pipe = &pstate->pipe;
>>>>> +     const struct dpu_hw_sspp_cfg *pipe_cfg = &pstate->pipe_cfg;
>>>>> +     const struct dpu_sw_pipe *r_pipe = &pstate->r_pipe;
>>>>> +     const struct dpu_hw_sspp_cfg *r_pipe_cfg = &pstate->r_pipe_cfg;
>>>>>
>>>>>         drm_printf(p, "\tstage=%d\n", pstate->stage);
>>>>> -     drm_printf(p, "\tsspp=%s\n", pstate->pipe.sspp->cap->name);
>>>>> -     drm_printf(p, "\tmultirect_mode=%s\n", dpu_get_multirect_mode(pstate->pipe.multirect_mode));
>>>>> -     drm_printf(p, "\tmultirect_index=%s\n", dpu_get_multirect_index(pstate->pipe.multirect_index));
>>>>> +
>>>>> +     drm_printf(p, "\tsspp[0]=%s\n", pipe->sspp->cap->name);
>>>>> +     drm_printf(p, "\tmultirect_mode[0]=%s\n", dpu_get_multirect_mode(pipe->multirect_mode));
>>>>> +     drm_printf(p, "\tmultirect_index[0]=%s\n", dpu_get_multirect_index(pipe->multirect_index));
>>>>> +     drm_printf(p, "\tsrc[0]=" DRM_RECT_FMT "\n", DRM_RECT_ARG(&pipe_cfg->src_rect));
>>>>> +     drm_printf(p, "\tdst[0]=" DRM_RECT_FMT "\n", DRM_RECT_ARG(&pipe_cfg->dst_rect));
>>>>> +
>>>>> +     if (r_pipe->sspp) {
>>>>> +             drm_printf(p, "\tsspp[1]=%s\n", r_pipe->sspp->cap->name);
>>>>> +             drm_printf(p, "\tmultirect_mode[1]=%s\n", dpu_get_multirect_mode(r_pipe->multirect_mode));
>>>>> +             drm_printf(p, "\tmultirect_index[1]=%s\n", dpu_get_multirect_index(r_pipe->multirect_index));
>>>>> +             drm_printf(p, "\tsrc[1]=" DRM_RECT_FMT "\n", DRM_RECT_ARG(&r_pipe_cfg->src_rect));
>>>>> +             drm_printf(p, "\tdst[1]=" DRM_RECT_FMT "\n", DRM_RECT_ARG(&r_pipe_cfg->dst_rect));
>>>>> +     }
>>>>>     }
>>>>
>>>> Do you think that changing the atomic_print_state to print the r_pipe
>>>> sspp can be moved to a separate patch? So that way we only keep the core
>>>> logic of atomic check of smartDMA in this patch.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     static void dpu_plane_reset(struct drm_plane *plane)
>>>>> @@ -1407,6 +1494,10 @@ static void dpu_plane_reset(struct drm_plane *plane)
>>>>>          * This is the place where the state is allocated, so fill it fully.
>>>>>          */
>>>>>         pstate->pipe.sspp = dpu_rm_get_sspp(&dpu_kms->rm, pdpu->pipe);
>>>>> +     pstate->pipe.multirect_index = DPU_SSPP_RECT_SOLO;
>>>>> +     pstate->pipe.multirect_mode = DPU_SSPP_MULTIRECT_NONE;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +     pstate->r_pipe.sspp = NULL;
>>>>>
>>>>>         __drm_atomic_helper_plane_reset(plane, &pstate->base);
>>>>>     }
>>>>> @@ -1423,6 +1514,7 @@ void dpu_plane_danger_signal_ctrl(struct drm_plane *plane, bool enable)
>>>>>
>>>>>         pm_runtime_get_sync(&dpu_kms->pdev->dev);
>>>>>         _dpu_plane_set_qos_ctrl(plane, &pstate->pipe, enable, DPU_PLANE_QOS_PANIC_CTRL);
>>>>> +     _dpu_plane_set_qos_ctrl(plane, &pstate->r_pipe, enable, DPU_PLANE_QOS_PANIC_CTRL);
>>>>>         pm_runtime_put_sync(&dpu_kms->pdev->dev);
>>>>>     }
>>>>>     #endif
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.h
>>>>> index 079dad83eb37..183c95949885 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.h
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.h
>>>>> @@ -19,7 +19,9 @@
>>>>>      * @base:   base drm plane state object
>>>>>      * @aspace: pointer to address space for input/output buffers
>>>>>      * @pipe:   software pipe description
>>>>> + * @r_pipe:  software pipe description of the second pipe
>>>>>      * @pipe_cfg:       software pipe configuration
>>>>> + * @r_pipe_cfg:      software pipe configuration for the second pipe
>>>>>      * @stage:  assigned by crtc blender
>>>>>      * @needs_qos_remap: qos remap settings need to be updated
>>>>>      * @multirect_index: index of the rectangle of SSPP
>>>>> @@ -34,7 +36,9 @@ struct dpu_plane_state {
>>>>>         struct drm_plane_state base;
>>>>>         struct msm_gem_address_space *aspace;
>>>>>         struct dpu_sw_pipe pipe;
>>>>> +     struct dpu_sw_pipe r_pipe;
>>>>>         struct dpu_hw_sspp_cfg pipe_cfg;
>>>>> +     struct dpu_hw_sspp_cfg r_pipe_cfg;
>>>>>         enum dpu_stage stage;
>>>>>         bool needs_qos_remap;
>>>>>         bool pending;
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 
> --
> With best wishes
> Dmitry

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Cc: Kalyan Thota <quic_kalyant@quicinc.com>,
	freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run>
Subject: Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH v3 27/27] drm/msm/dpu: add support for wide planes
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2023 14:12:37 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <396c388b-de81-6794-d846-636234f1edb0@quicinc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA8EJppHhd5WSqOsz5tfW0zwyqevZgYANHhg8Yqwvr4X3jZ65A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Dmitry

On 2/9/2023 1:23 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> Hi Abhinav,
> 
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 21:25, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/9/2023 3:45 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 04:19, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/3/2023 10:21 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>> Typically SSPP can support rectangle with width up to 2560. However it's
>>>>
>>>> Not always 2560. Depends on the chipset.
>>>
>>> _typically_
>>>
>>
>> Would just say maxlinewidth of SSPP instead of giving some hardcoded number.
> 
> Ack.
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>>> possible to use multirect feature and split source to use the SSPP to
>>>>> output two consecutive rectangles. This commit brings in this capability
>>>>> to support wider screen resolutions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_crtc.c  |   6 ++
>>>>>     drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.c | 116 +++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>>     drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.h |   4 +
>>>>>     3 files changed, 114 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_crtc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_crtc.c
>>>>> index 0ca3bc38ff7e..867832a752b2 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_crtc.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_crtc.c
>>>>> @@ -485,6 +485,12 @@ static void _dpu_crtc_blend_setup_mixer(struct drm_crtc *crtc,
>>>>>                                            fetch_active,
>>>>>                                            &pstate->pipe);
>>>>>
>>>>> +             _dpu_crtc_blend_setup_pipe(crtc, plane,
>>>>> +                                        mixer, cstate->num_mixers,
>>>>> +                                        stage_cfg, pstate->stage, 1,
>>>>> +                                        fetch_active,
>>>>> +                                        &pstate->r_pipe);
>>>>> +
>>>>>                 /* blend config update */
>>>>>                 for (lm_idx = 0; lm_idx < cstate->num_mixers; lm_idx++) {
>>>>>                         _dpu_crtc_setup_blend_cfg(mixer + lm_idx, pstate, format);
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.c
>>>>> index e2e85688ed3c..401ead64c6bd 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.c
>>>>> @@ -365,6 +365,9 @@ static void _dpu_plane_set_qos_ctrl(struct drm_plane *plane,
>>>>>         struct dpu_plane *pdpu = to_dpu_plane(plane);
>>>>>         struct dpu_hw_pipe_qos_cfg pipe_qos_cfg;
>>>>>
>>>>> +     if (!pipe->sspp)
>>>>> +             return;
>>>>> +
>>>>>         memset(&pipe_qos_cfg, 0, sizeof(pipe_qos_cfg));
>>>>>
>>>>>         if (flags & DPU_PLANE_QOS_VBLANK_CTRL) {
>>>>> @@ -647,6 +650,9 @@ static int _dpu_plane_color_fill_pipe(struct dpu_plane_state *pstate,
>>>>>     {
>>>>>         struct dpu_hw_sspp_cfg pipe_cfg;
>>>>>
>>>>> +     if (!pipe->sspp)
>>>>> +             return 0;
>>>>
>>>> instead of checking if sspp was present, is it not better for the caller
>>>> to check if the rpipe is valid before calling this?
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>>         /* update sspp */
>>>>>         if (!pipe->sspp->ops.setup_solidfill)
>>>>>                 return 0;
>>>>> @@ -701,6 +707,8 @@ static void _dpu_plane_color_fill(struct dpu_plane *pdpu,
>>>>>
>>>>>         /* update sspp */
>>>>>         _dpu_plane_color_fill_pipe(pstate, &pstate->pipe, &pstate->pipe_cfg, fill_color, fmt);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +     _dpu_plane_color_fill_pipe(pstate, &pstate->r_pipe, &pstate->r_pipe_cfg, fill_color, fmt);
>>>>>     }
>>>>
>>>> So cant we do
>>>>
>>>> if (pstate->r_pipe.sspp)
>>>>           _dpu_plane_color_fill_pipe(pstate, &pstate->r_pipe,
>>>>                   &pstate->r_pipe_cfg, fill_color, fmt);
>>>>
>>>> It just seems better to me as the caller would already know if the sspp
>>>> was assigned.
>>>
>>>    I think I had this kind of code earlier, but then I found it more
>>> logical to move the check to the called function. I'll move it back.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     int dpu_plane_validate_multirect_v2(struct dpu_multirect_plane_states *plane)
>>>>> @@ -911,6 +919,9 @@ static int dpu_plane_atomic_check_pipe(struct dpu_plane *pdpu,
>>>>>     {
>>>>>         uint32_t min_src_size;
>>>>>
>>>>> +     if (!pipe->sspp)
>>>>> +             return 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>>         min_src_size = DPU_FORMAT_IS_YUV(fmt) ? 2 : 1;
>>>>>
>>>>>         if (DPU_FORMAT_IS_YUV(fmt) &&
>>>>> @@ -957,9 +968,12 @@ static int dpu_plane_atomic_check(struct drm_plane *plane,
>>>>>         int ret = 0, min_scale;
>>>>>         struct dpu_plane *pdpu = to_dpu_plane(plane);
>>>>>         struct dpu_plane_state *pstate = to_dpu_plane_state(new_plane_state);
>>>>> +     struct dpu_sw_pipe *pipe = &pstate->pipe;
>>>>> +     struct dpu_sw_pipe *r_pipe = &pstate->r_pipe;
>>>>>         const struct drm_crtc_state *crtc_state = NULL;
>>>>>         const struct dpu_format *fmt;
>>>>>         struct dpu_hw_sspp_cfg *pipe_cfg = &pstate->pipe_cfg;
>>>>> +     struct dpu_hw_sspp_cfg *r_pipe_cfg = &pstate->r_pipe_cfg;
>>>>>         struct drm_rect fb_rect = { 0 };
>>>>>         uint32_t max_linewidth;
>>>>>         unsigned int rotation;
>>>>> @@ -983,8 +997,11 @@ static int dpu_plane_atomic_check(struct drm_plane *plane,
>>>>>         if (!new_plane_state->visible)
>>>>>                 return 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> -     pstate->pipe.multirect_index = DPU_SSPP_RECT_SOLO;
>>>>> -     pstate->pipe.multirect_mode = DPU_SSPP_MULTIRECT_NONE;
>>>>> +     pipe->multirect_index = DPU_SSPP_RECT_SOLO;
>>>>> +     pipe->multirect_mode = DPU_SSPP_MULTIRECT_NONE;
>>>>> +     r_pipe->multirect_index = DPU_SSPP_RECT_SOLO;
>>>>> +     r_pipe->multirect_mode = DPU_SSPP_MULTIRECT_NONE;
>>>>> +     r_pipe->sspp = NULL;
>>>>>
>>>>>         pstate->stage = DPU_STAGE_0 + pstate->base.normalized_zpos;
>>>>>         if (pstate->stage >= pdpu->catalog->caps->max_mixer_blendstages) {
>>>>> @@ -1016,16 +1033,53 @@ static int dpu_plane_atomic_check(struct drm_plane *plane,
>>>>>
>>>>>         max_linewidth = pdpu->catalog->caps->max_linewidth;
>>>>>
>>>>> -     /* check decimated source width */
>>>>>         if (drm_rect_width(&pipe_cfg->src_rect) > max_linewidth) {
>>>>> -             DPU_DEBUG_PLANE(pdpu, "invalid src " DRM_RECT_FMT " line:%u\n",
>>>>> -                             DRM_RECT_ARG(&pipe_cfg->src_rect), max_linewidth);
>>>>> -             return -E2BIG;
>>>>> +             /* struct dpu_crtc_state *cstate = to_dpu_crtc_state(crtc_state); */
>>>>> +
>>>>> +             if (drm_rect_width(&pipe_cfg->src_rect) > 2 * max_linewidth) {
>>>>> +                     DPU_DEBUG_PLANE(pdpu, "invalid src " DRM_RECT_FMT " line:%u\n",
>>>>> +                                     DRM_RECT_ARG(&pipe_cfg->src_rect), max_linewidth);
>>>>> +                     return -E2BIG;
>>>>> +             }
>>>>
>>>> This is where I am a bit concerned enabling it for all chipsets in one go.
>>>
>>> As I wrote earlier, I'd prefer the opt-out rather than opt-in here. It
>>> is much easier to handle the reports "I have a device with sm6543,
>>> where the display worked before 6.4, but started failing afterwards"
>>> rather than trying to find a person with sm6543 and asking him if he
>>> can enable this and that on his device. And even a lower chance of a
>>> person with sm6543 coming up with a patch 'hey, I enabled this for my
>>> phone and it works!'.
>>>
>>> If we find any issues during or close to the end of the development
>>> cycle, we can add a 'don't enable wide plane here' switch and enable
>>> it for failing platforms. But each enablement of this switch should
>>> come with a reason (wide planes not working here because ....). In the
>>> end this switch should be gone and transformed into proper HW
>>> limitation checks.
>>>
>>
>> As it has become clear that with this patch series 4K with UBWC cannot
>> be supported without true virtual planes (with two SSPPs), why do you
>> need to relax this check right now?
> 
> Yes. It enables support for 4k @ linear formats. So my plan for this
> series is to land 4k with all the proper applicable restrictions.
> 
>> You can relax this when you add the support for virtual planes till then
>> let it be this way.
>>
>> Its not going to break smartDMA as such. You can still use it for layers
>> < 2560.
>>
>> That way we stay true to the purpose of the feature. I think originally
>> you wanted to get this in for smartDMA and not to support wide plane and
>> that purpose will still be achieved even with keeping this check intact.
> 
> Actually, no. With this series I wanted to get 4k. It was developed in
> parallel with the 4k enablement for RB3 (posted, bridge patches are
> being merged for 6.3) and RB5 (delayed for now, I have other issues
> there).
> 

With the UBWC related checks, this wont support 4K for UBWC layers which 
is default on QC chipsets. So I am fine with respect to that. But still 
this does not address the product spec advertized modes. Like I 
mentioned before, relaxing the maxlinewidth check with the added UBWC 
checks is fine from DPU point of view but not from the product POV.

As things stand today, this is the only check failing the 4K modes on 
chipsets which shouldnt support 4k (linear or UBWC doesnt matter).

>> You can relax it in the virtual plane series.
>>
>> Regarding issues, this is where it gets tricky. We should be aligning
>> with what the product supports. QC will not support issues arising with
>> 4K on chipsets on which 4K is not advertized.
> 
> So, we have several different items here:
> - SmartDMA v2 per se, supporting two rectangles per VIG or DMA plane,
> - Source split support,
> - Supporting 4k modes.
> 
> I think we should tend them one by one. This series concerns SmartDMA
> v2. Using SmartDMA it is possible to use two rectangles side by side
> to emulate a wide plane. This series doesn't care at all about max
> resolutions. These two items are completely orthogonal.
> 

No its not orthogonal. Relaxing the maxlinewidth check in the 
atomic_check() will allow 4K layers now even on chipsets where 4K wasnt 
advertized. Linear or UBWC doesnt matter as the spec doesnt go into that.

>>>> As you are aware,  we have an open bug today that we do not filter out
>>>> the modes which we do not support.
>>>>
>>>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/issues/21
>>>
>>> I thought that with the link-frequencies in place and with the DSI
>>> checking the OPP tables this issue is mostly handled. Isn't it?
>>> Is a mode check in the DPU driver itself the last missing piece?
>>>
>>
>> opp based checking was implemented only for DSI. That one is byte clk based.
>>
>> DP uses link rate for opp table.
>>
>> Even with a 5.4G link rate (the one in sc7180 chromebook) 4k@30 would
>> still be possible but it was not advertized
>>
>> https://www.qualcomm.com/content/dam/qcomm-martech/dm-assets/documents/prod_brief_qcom_sd7c.pdf
>>
>> These docs are available in public domain.
>>
>> As we synced up last time on
>> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/107917/, even with these limits
>> in place, its not matching the advertized limits.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Due to this, on all chipsets we will end up trying to do a 4K on
>>>> external display which we dont know what bugs it will expose.
>>>
>>> If we do not expose bugs, we do not have a way to fix them. And I
>>> definitely think that all the bugs should be listed as early as
>>> possible, while both of us still remember the code under the question.
>>>
>>
>> Yes but on chipsets where 4K is supported ( and hence needed ).
> 
> 4k, SmartDMA, src-split, split-display, etc.
> 

The visual issues reported on sdm845 on the other thread are a classic 
example of what I just wrote on that patchset and thats why I was 
emphasizing a visual validation OR in other words enable the feature on 
which you are able to visually validate it.

We can evaluate and enable smartDMA on other chipsets on a need basis.

We discussed this again even today in the team discussion. Our team's 
PoV doesnt change. We would still like to enable smartDMA only on 
chipsets which can be visually validated first to limit the debugging 
effort to one chipset first and then perfect it. Otherwise its too much 
effort on QC side to debug those issues on all chipsets.


> 
>>
>>>>
>>>> So lets say if we test it on sc7280 fully but not on sc7180, we will
>>>> still hit this condition on sc7180 too but on that chipset we did not
>>>> advertise 4K as a capability in the product spec.
>>>
>>> Is it 'not advertised' or 'not supported by hw'?
>>>
>>
>> The document
>> https://www.qualcomm.com/content/dam/qcomm-martech/dm-assets/documents/prod_brief_qcom_sd7c.pdf
>> is made from inputs from not just display team but overall system
>> limits. So even though you could argue that this falls within the
>> display capabilities, all I can say at the moment is we have to stick to
>> the advertized limits as its compiled with inputs from all the teams
>> (system/performance etc).
> 
> So, there should be a limiting factor (or a combination of them).
> Filter out 4k modes on sc7180. Or modes using fill rate higher than N.
> Pixel clock rate higher than M. But it has nothing to do with these
> patches enabling SmartDMA support on this platform.
> 
> Even if we look at the vendor kernels, we don't see 'maximum external
> resolution'. Instead I see a combination of linewidth and bandwidth
> limitations. If we can stick to that, that would be great.
> 

Can you please point me to bandwidth limitation checks? How are other 
vendors coming up with this number? It has to be based on some 
resolution too right?

My RFC https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/107917/ considered pixel 
clk as the limiting factor which was posted after discussions 
internally. In the absence of another way, that remains the only 
solution to tackle this.

>>
>>>>
>>>> With the max_linewidth check relaxed nothing prevents us from doing 4K
>>>> on a chipset which doesnt support 4K.
>>>
>>> What prevents sc7180 from supporting 4k? Does it support Smart DMA?
>>> Does it support having two LMs per INTF/CRTC? Is there a limitation on
>>> the linewidth of two LMs or two SSPPs?
>>>
>>> I see that sm7125 (which has the same DPU revision) even contains
>>> "qcom,sde-vig-sspp-linewidth = <4096>;" in the DTS, despite official
>>> 'product brief' advertising only 2520x1080 output resolution.
>>>
>>
>> My previous response should have answered this.
> 
> Up to some point, thanks.
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +             /*
>>>>> +              * FIXME: it's not possible to check if sourcesplit is supported,
>>>>> +              * LMs is not assigned yet. It happens in dpu_encoder_virt_mode_set
>>>>> +              */
>>>>> +             if (drm_rect_width(&pipe_cfg->src_rect) != drm_rect_width(&pipe_cfg->dst_rect) ||
>>>>> +                        drm_rect_height(&pipe_cfg->src_rect) != drm_rect_height(&pipe_cfg->dst_rect) ||
>>>>> +                        (!test_bit(DPU_SSPP_SMART_DMA_V1, &pipe->sspp->cap->features) &&
>>>>> +                         !test_bit(DPU_SSPP_SMART_DMA_V2, &pipe->sspp->cap->features)) ||
>>>>> +                        /* cstate->num_mixers < 2 ||
>>>>> +                        !test_bit(DPU_MIXER_SOURCESPLIT, &cstate->mixers[0].hw_lm->cap->features) || */
>>>>> +                        DPU_FORMAT_IS_YUV(fmt)) {
>>>>> +                     DPU_DEBUG_PLANE(pdpu, "invalid src " DRM_RECT_FMT " line:%u, can't use split source\n",
>>>>> +                                     DRM_RECT_ARG(&pipe_cfg->src_rect), max_linewidth);
>>>>> +                     return -E2BIG;
>>>>> +             }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +             /* Use multirect for wide plane. We do not support dynamic assignment of SSPPs, so we know the configuration. */
>>>>> +             pipe->multirect_index = DPU_SSPP_RECT_0;
>>>>> +             pipe->multirect_mode = DPU_SSPP_MULTIRECT_PARALLEL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +             r_pipe->sspp = pipe->sspp;
>>>>> +             r_pipe->multirect_index = DPU_SSPP_RECT_1;
>>>>> +             r_pipe->multirect_mode = DPU_SSPP_MULTIRECT_PARALLEL;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +             *r_pipe_cfg = *pipe_cfg;
>>>>> +             pipe_cfg->src_rect.x2 = (pipe_cfg->src_rect.x1 + pipe_cfg->src_rect.x2) >> 1;
>>>>> +             pipe_cfg->dst_rect.x2 = (pipe_cfg->dst_rect.x1 + pipe_cfg->dst_rect.x2) >> 1;
>>>>> +             r_pipe_cfg->src_rect.x1 = pipe_cfg->src_rect.x2;
>>>>> +             r_pipe_cfg->dst_rect.x1 = pipe_cfg->dst_rect.x2;
>>>>>         }
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As you requested just wanted to summarize the condition in the email.
>>>>
>>>> In parallel fetch mode, the downstream driver for UBWC formats, we check
>>>> whether the src width of each rectangle is > maxlinewidth/2
>>>>
>>>> https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/platform/vendor/opensource/display-drivers/-/blob/DISPLAY.LA.2.0.r3-00500-WAIPIO.0/msm/sde/sde_plane.c#L1835
>>>
>>> Thanks. Please double check my understanding: If the rectangle is used
>>> for the tiled format, then it's max_linewidth is effectively halved.
>>> So we can use rect_solo with full width, but for rect_0/rect_1 we
>>> should halve it, even if two rectangles are used in the time split?
>>>
>>
>> Not in time split mode. Only in parallel fetch mode which is being used
>> here. Rest of your understanding is correct.
> 
> Ack, thanks for the correction. This is important for plane checks.
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>> For sc7280, maxlinewidth is 2400
>>>>
>>>> static const struct dpu_caps sc7280_dpu_caps = {
>>>>            .max_mixer_width = DEFAULT_DPU_OUTPUT_LINE_WIDTH,
>>>>            .max_mixer_blendstages = 0x7,
>>>>            .qseed_type = DPU_SSPP_SCALER_QSEED4,
>>>>            .smart_dma_rev = DPU_SSPP_SMART_DMA_V2,
>>>>            .ubwc_version = DPU_HW_UBWC_VER_30,
>>>>            .has_dim_layer = true,
>>>>            .has_idle_pc = true,
>>>>            .max_linewidth = 2400,
>>>>            .pixel_ram_size = DEFAULT_PIXEL_RAM_SIZE,
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> Hence for UBWC formats which are by default used on the sc7280
>>>> chromebook, each rectangle should be < 1200
>>>>
>>>> SmartDMA is therefore not enough to support 4K on sc7280 and we need
>>>> true virtual planes ( using two SSPPs to display the 4K layer )
>>>>
>>>> Also, probably worth commenting that time multiplex mode support is not
>>>> added in this series.
>>>
>>> Ack.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>         fmt = to_dpu_format(msm_framebuffer_format(new_plane_state->fb));
>>>>>
>>>>> -     ret = dpu_plane_atomic_check_pipe(pdpu, &pstate->pipe, pipe_cfg, fmt);
>>>>> +     ret = dpu_plane_atomic_check_pipe(pdpu, pipe, pipe_cfg, fmt);
>>>>> +     if (ret)
>>>>> +             return ret;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +     ret = dpu_plane_atomic_check_pipe(pdpu, r_pipe, r_pipe_cfg, fmt);
>>>>>         if (ret)
>>>>>                 return ret;
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -1094,8 +1148,10 @@ void dpu_plane_flush(struct drm_plane *plane)
>>>>>         else if (pdpu->color_fill & DPU_PLANE_COLOR_FILL_FLAG)
>>>>>                 /* force 100% alpha */
>>>>>                 _dpu_plane_color_fill(pdpu, pdpu->color_fill, 0xFF);
>>>>> -     else
>>>>> +     else {
>>>>>                 dpu_plane_flush_csc(pdpu, &pstate->pipe);
>>>>> +             dpu_plane_flush_csc(pdpu, &pstate->r_pipe);
>>>>> +     }
>>>>>
>>>>>         /* flag h/w flush complete */
>>>>>         if (plane->state)
>>>>> @@ -1130,6 +1186,9 @@ static void dpu_plane_sspp_update_pipe(struct drm_plane *plane,
>>>>>         struct drm_plane_state *state = plane->state;
>>>>>         struct dpu_plane_state *pstate = to_dpu_plane_state(state);
>>>>>
>>>>> +     if (!pipe->sspp)
>>>>> +             return;
>>>>> +
>>>>>         if (layout && pipe->sspp->ops.setup_sourceaddress) {
>>>>>                 trace_dpu_plane_set_scanout(pipe, layout);
>>>>>                 pipe->sspp->ops.setup_sourceaddress(pipe, layout);
>>>>> @@ -1207,13 +1266,14 @@ static void dpu_plane_sspp_atomic_update(struct drm_plane *plane)
>>>>>         struct drm_plane_state *state = plane->state;
>>>>>         struct dpu_plane_state *pstate = to_dpu_plane_state(state);
>>>>>         struct dpu_sw_pipe *pipe = &pstate->pipe;
>>>>> +     struct dpu_sw_pipe *r_pipe = &pstate->r_pipe;
>>>>>         struct drm_crtc *crtc = state->crtc;
>>>>>         struct drm_framebuffer *fb = state->fb;
>>>>>         bool is_rt_pipe;
>>>>>         const struct dpu_format *fmt =
>>>>>                 to_dpu_format(msm_framebuffer_format(fb));
>>>>>         struct dpu_hw_sspp_cfg *pipe_cfg = &pstate->pipe_cfg;
>>>>> -
>>>>> +     struct dpu_hw_sspp_cfg *r_pipe_cfg = &pstate->r_pipe_cfg;
>>>>>         struct dpu_kms *kms = _dpu_plane_get_kms(&pdpu->base);
>>>>>         struct msm_gem_address_space *aspace = kms->base.aspace;
>>>>>         struct dpu_hw_fmt_layout layout;
>>>>> @@ -1241,12 +1301,22 @@ static void dpu_plane_sspp_atomic_update(struct drm_plane *plane)
>>>>>                                    drm_mode_vrefresh(&crtc->mode),
>>>>>                                    layout_valid ? &layout: NULL);
>>>>>
>>>>> +     dpu_plane_sspp_update_pipe(plane, r_pipe, r_pipe_cfg, fmt,
>>>>> +                                drm_mode_vrefresh(&crtc->mode),
>>>>> +                                layout_valid ? &layout: NULL);
>>>>> +
>>>>>         if (pstate->needs_qos_remap)
>>>>>                 pstate->needs_qos_remap = false;
>>>>>
>>>>>         pstate->plane_fetch_bw = _dpu_plane_calc_bw(pdpu->catalog, fmt, &crtc->mode, pipe_cfg);
>>>>>
>>>>>         pstate->plane_clk = _dpu_plane_calc_clk(&crtc->mode, pipe_cfg);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +     if (r_pipe->sspp) {
>>>>> +             pstate->plane_fetch_bw += _dpu_plane_calc_bw(pdpu->catalog, fmt, &crtc->mode, r_pipe_cfg);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +             pstate->plane_clk = max(pstate->plane_clk, _dpu_plane_calc_clk(&crtc->mode, r_pipe_cfg));
>>>>> +     }
>>>>>     }
>>>>>
>>>>>     static void _dpu_plane_atomic_disable(struct drm_plane *plane)
>>>>> @@ -1289,6 +1359,8 @@ static void dpu_plane_destroy(struct drm_plane *plane)
>>>>>                 pstate = to_dpu_plane_state(plane->state);
>>>>>                 _dpu_plane_set_qos_ctrl(plane, &pstate->pipe, false, DPU_PLANE_QOS_PANIC_CTRL);
>>>>>
>>>>> +             _dpu_plane_set_qos_ctrl(plane, &pstate->r_pipe, false, DPU_PLANE_QOS_PANIC_CTRL);
>>>>> +
>>>>>                 mutex_destroy(&pdpu->lock);
>>>>>
>>>>>                 /* this will destroy the states as well */
>>>>> @@ -1369,11 +1441,26 @@ static void dpu_plane_atomic_print_state(struct drm_printer *p,
>>>>>                 const struct drm_plane_state *state)
>>>>>     {
>>>>>         const struct dpu_plane_state *pstate = to_dpu_plane_state(state);
>>>>> +     const struct dpu_sw_pipe *pipe = &pstate->pipe;
>>>>> +     const struct dpu_hw_sspp_cfg *pipe_cfg = &pstate->pipe_cfg;
>>>>> +     const struct dpu_sw_pipe *r_pipe = &pstate->r_pipe;
>>>>> +     const struct dpu_hw_sspp_cfg *r_pipe_cfg = &pstate->r_pipe_cfg;
>>>>>
>>>>>         drm_printf(p, "\tstage=%d\n", pstate->stage);
>>>>> -     drm_printf(p, "\tsspp=%s\n", pstate->pipe.sspp->cap->name);
>>>>> -     drm_printf(p, "\tmultirect_mode=%s\n", dpu_get_multirect_mode(pstate->pipe.multirect_mode));
>>>>> -     drm_printf(p, "\tmultirect_index=%s\n", dpu_get_multirect_index(pstate->pipe.multirect_index));
>>>>> +
>>>>> +     drm_printf(p, "\tsspp[0]=%s\n", pipe->sspp->cap->name);
>>>>> +     drm_printf(p, "\tmultirect_mode[0]=%s\n", dpu_get_multirect_mode(pipe->multirect_mode));
>>>>> +     drm_printf(p, "\tmultirect_index[0]=%s\n", dpu_get_multirect_index(pipe->multirect_index));
>>>>> +     drm_printf(p, "\tsrc[0]=" DRM_RECT_FMT "\n", DRM_RECT_ARG(&pipe_cfg->src_rect));
>>>>> +     drm_printf(p, "\tdst[0]=" DRM_RECT_FMT "\n", DRM_RECT_ARG(&pipe_cfg->dst_rect));
>>>>> +
>>>>> +     if (r_pipe->sspp) {
>>>>> +             drm_printf(p, "\tsspp[1]=%s\n", r_pipe->sspp->cap->name);
>>>>> +             drm_printf(p, "\tmultirect_mode[1]=%s\n", dpu_get_multirect_mode(r_pipe->multirect_mode));
>>>>> +             drm_printf(p, "\tmultirect_index[1]=%s\n", dpu_get_multirect_index(r_pipe->multirect_index));
>>>>> +             drm_printf(p, "\tsrc[1]=" DRM_RECT_FMT "\n", DRM_RECT_ARG(&r_pipe_cfg->src_rect));
>>>>> +             drm_printf(p, "\tdst[1]=" DRM_RECT_FMT "\n", DRM_RECT_ARG(&r_pipe_cfg->dst_rect));
>>>>> +     }
>>>>>     }
>>>>
>>>> Do you think that changing the atomic_print_state to print the r_pipe
>>>> sspp can be moved to a separate patch? So that way we only keep the core
>>>> logic of atomic check of smartDMA in this patch.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     static void dpu_plane_reset(struct drm_plane *plane)
>>>>> @@ -1407,6 +1494,10 @@ static void dpu_plane_reset(struct drm_plane *plane)
>>>>>          * This is the place where the state is allocated, so fill it fully.
>>>>>          */
>>>>>         pstate->pipe.sspp = dpu_rm_get_sspp(&dpu_kms->rm, pdpu->pipe);
>>>>> +     pstate->pipe.multirect_index = DPU_SSPP_RECT_SOLO;
>>>>> +     pstate->pipe.multirect_mode = DPU_SSPP_MULTIRECT_NONE;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +     pstate->r_pipe.sspp = NULL;
>>>>>
>>>>>         __drm_atomic_helper_plane_reset(plane, &pstate->base);
>>>>>     }
>>>>> @@ -1423,6 +1514,7 @@ void dpu_plane_danger_signal_ctrl(struct drm_plane *plane, bool enable)
>>>>>
>>>>>         pm_runtime_get_sync(&dpu_kms->pdev->dev);
>>>>>         _dpu_plane_set_qos_ctrl(plane, &pstate->pipe, enable, DPU_PLANE_QOS_PANIC_CTRL);
>>>>> +     _dpu_plane_set_qos_ctrl(plane, &pstate->r_pipe, enable, DPU_PLANE_QOS_PANIC_CTRL);
>>>>>         pm_runtime_put_sync(&dpu_kms->pdev->dev);
>>>>>     }
>>>>>     #endif
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.h
>>>>> index 079dad83eb37..183c95949885 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.h
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_plane.h
>>>>> @@ -19,7 +19,9 @@
>>>>>      * @base:   base drm plane state object
>>>>>      * @aspace: pointer to address space for input/output buffers
>>>>>      * @pipe:   software pipe description
>>>>> + * @r_pipe:  software pipe description of the second pipe
>>>>>      * @pipe_cfg:       software pipe configuration
>>>>> + * @r_pipe_cfg:      software pipe configuration for the second pipe
>>>>>      * @stage:  assigned by crtc blender
>>>>>      * @needs_qos_remap: qos remap settings need to be updated
>>>>>      * @multirect_index: index of the rectangle of SSPP
>>>>> @@ -34,7 +36,9 @@ struct dpu_plane_state {
>>>>>         struct drm_plane_state base;
>>>>>         struct msm_gem_address_space *aspace;
>>>>>         struct dpu_sw_pipe pipe;
>>>>> +     struct dpu_sw_pipe r_pipe;
>>>>>         struct dpu_hw_sspp_cfg pipe_cfg;
>>>>> +     struct dpu_hw_sspp_cfg r_pipe_cfg;
>>>>>         enum dpu_stage stage;
>>>>>         bool needs_qos_remap;
>>>>>         bool pending;
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 
> --
> With best wishes
> Dmitry

  reply	other threads:[~2023-02-09 22:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 176+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-02-03 18:21 [PATCH v3 00/27] drm/msm/dpu: wide planes support Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 01/27] drm/msm/dpu: rename struct dpu_hw_pipe(_cfg) to dpu_hw_sspp(_cfg) Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 19:31   ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-03 19:31     ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 02/27] drm/msm/dpu: move SSPP allocation to the RM Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 03/27] drm/msm/dpu: move SSPP debugfs creation to dpu_kms.c Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 04/27] drm/msm/dpu: drop EAGAIN check from dpu_format_populate_layout Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 05/27] drm/msm/dpu: move pipe_hw to dpu_plane_state Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 19:34   ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-03 19:34     ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 06/27] drm/msm/dpu: drop dpu_plane_pipe function Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 07/27] drm/msm/dpu: introduce struct dpu_sw_pipe Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 08/27] drm/msm/dpu: use dpu_sw_pipe for dpu_hw_sspp callbacks Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 09/27] drm/msm/dpu: pass dpu_format to _dpu_hw_sspp_setup_scaler3() Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 19:36   ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-03 19:36     ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 10/27] drm/msm/dpu: clean up SRC addresses when setting up SSPP for solid fill Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 20:36   ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-03 20:36     ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 11/27] drm/msm/dpu: move stride programming to dpu_hw_sspp_setup_sourceaddress Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 20:37   ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-03 20:37     ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 12/27] drm/msm/dpu: remove dpu_hw_fmt_layout from struct dpu_hw_sspp_cfg Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 13/27] drm/msm/dpu: drop src_split and multirect check from dpu_crtc_atomic_check Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 14/27] drm/msm/dpu: don't use unsupported blend stages Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 20:42   ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-03 20:42     ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 15/27] drm/msm/dpu: move the rest of plane checks to dpu_plane_atomic_check() Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 22:44   ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-03 22:44     ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-03 22:55     ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 22:55       ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-14 23:25       ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-14 23:25         ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-15  0:08         ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-15  0:08           ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-03-03 11:43           ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-03-03 11:43             ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 16/27] drm/msm/dpu: drop redundant plane dst check from dpu_crtc_atomic_check() Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 22:57   ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-03 22:57     ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 17/27] drm/msm/dpu: rewrite plane's QoS-related functions to take dpu_sw_pipe and dpu_format Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 23:07   ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-03 23:07     ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-03 23:20     ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 23:20       ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-08 23:09       ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-08 23:09         ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 18/27] drm/msm/dpu: populate SmartDMA features in hw catalog Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 23:35   ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-03 23:35     ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-04  2:29     ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-04  2:29       ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-04  2:43       ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-04  2:43         ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-04  4:10         ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-04  4:10           ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-04  5:10           ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-04  5:10             ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-04 10:43             ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-04 10:43               ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-04 18:35               ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-04 18:35                 ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-04 21:08                 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-04 21:08                   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-04 23:20                   ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-04 23:20                     ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-05  0:29                     ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-05  0:29                       ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-05  0:36                       ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-05  0:36                         ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-08 23:53                         ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-08 23:53                           ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 19/27] drm/msm/dpu: make _dpu_plane_calc_clk accept mode directly Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-06 18:48   ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-06 18:48     ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 20/27] drm/msm/dpu: add dpu_hw_pipe_cfg to dpu_plane_state Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-06 19:07   ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-06 19:07     ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-16 16:49     ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-16 16:49       ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 21/27] drm/msm/dpu: simplify dpu_plane_validate_src() Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-06 22:40   ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-06 22:40     ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-07  0:27     ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-07  0:27       ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-07  0:42       ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-07  0:42         ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 22/27] drm/msm/dpu: rework dpu_plane_sspp_atomic_update() Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-07  0:22   ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-07  0:22     ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-09  0:49     ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-09  0:49       ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-09  0:51     ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-09  0:51       ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-09 11:46     ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-09 11:46       ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 23/27] drm/msm/dpu: rework dpu_plane_atomic_check() Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-07 17:49   ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-07 17:49     ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-07 17:51     ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-07 17:51       ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-07 17:57       ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-07 17:57         ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-07 17:59         ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-07 17:59           ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-07 18:08           ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-07 18:08             ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-07 19:51             ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-07 19:51               ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 24/27] drm/msm/dpu: rework plane CSC setting Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-07 20:05   ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-07 20:05     ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-07 20:44     ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-07 20:44       ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-07 20:57       ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-07 20:57         ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 25/27] drm/msm/dpu: rework static color fill code Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-08 22:34   ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-08 22:34     ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-09  0:53     ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-09  0:53       ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 26/27] drm/msm/dpu: split pipe handling from _dpu_crtc_blend_setup_mixer Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-08 23:44   ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-08 23:44     ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-08 23:47     ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-08 23:47       ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-03-03 12:18     ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-03-03 12:18       ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 27/27] drm/msm/dpu: add support for wide planes Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:21   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-09  2:19   ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-09  2:19     ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-09 11:45     ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-09 11:45       ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-09 19:25       ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-09 19:25         ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-09 21:23         ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-09 21:23           ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-09 22:12           ` Abhinav Kumar [this message]
2023-02-09 22:12             ` [Freedreno] " Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-10  0:09             ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-10  0:09               ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-10  1:12               ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-10  1:12                 ` Abhinav Kumar
2023-02-10  2:46                 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-10  2:46                   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:24 ` [PATCH v3 00/27] drm/msm/dpu: wide planes support Dmitry Baryshkov
2023-02-03 18:24   ` Dmitry Baryshkov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=396c388b-de81-6794-d846-636234f1edb0@quicinc.com \
    --to=quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com \
    --cc=airlied@gmail.com \
    --cc=andersson@kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=quic_kalyant@quicinc.com \
    --cc=robdclark@gmail.com \
    --cc=sean@poorly.run \
    --cc=swboyd@chromium.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.