Re: [RFC PATCH 03/13] drm/msm/dsi: add support for dsc data

[Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>]

On 21/05/2021 15:49, Vinod Koul wrote:
> DSC needs some configuration from device tree, add support to read and
> store these params and add DSC structures in msm_drv
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c | 170 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.h      |  32 ++++++
>   2 files changed, 202 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c
> index 8a10e4343281..864d3c655e73 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c
> @@ -156,6 +156,7 @@ struct msm_dsi_host {
>   	struct regmap *sfpb;
>   
>   	struct drm_display_mode *mode;
> +	struct msm_display_dsc_config *dsc;
>   
>   	/* connected device info */
>   	struct device_node *device_node;
> @@ -1744,6 +1745,168 @@ static int dsi_host_parse_lane_data(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host,
>   	return -EINVAL;
>   }
>   
> +static u32 dsi_dsc_rc_buf_thresh[DSC_NUM_BUF_RANGES - 1] = {
> +	0x0e, 0x1c, 0x2a, 0x38, 0x46, 0x54, 0x62,
> +	0x69, 0x70, 0x77, 0x79, 0x7b, 0x7d, 0x7e
> +};

I think we should move this table to a generic place. AMD and Intel DSC 
code uses the same table, shifted by 6 (and both of those drivers shift 
it before writing to the HW). Intel modifies this table for 6bpp case. 
AMD seems to use it as is.

> +
> +/* only 8bpc, 8bpp added */
> +static char min_qp[DSC_NUM_BUF_RANGES] = {
> +	0, 0, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5, 5, 5, 7, 13
> +};
> +
> +static char max_qp[DSC_NUM_BUF_RANGES] = {
> +	4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 13, 15
> +};
> +
> +static char bpg_offset[DSC_NUM_BUF_RANGES] = {
> +	2, 0, 0, -2, -4, -6, -8, -8, -8, -10, -10, -12, -12, -12, -12
> +};

And these parameters seem to be generic too. Intel DSC code contains 
them in a bit different form. Should we probably move them to the 
drm_dsc.c and use the tables the generic location?

AMD drivers uses a bit different values at the first glance, so let's 
stick with Intel version.

> +
> +static int dsi_populate_dsc_params(struct msm_display_dsc_config *dsc)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +
> +	dsc->drm.rc_model_size = 8192;
> +	dsc->drm.first_line_bpg_offset = 15;
> +	dsc->drm.rc_edge_factor = 6;
> +	dsc->drm.rc_tgt_offset_high = 3;
> +	dsc->drm.rc_tgt_offset_low = 3;
> +	dsc->drm.simple_422 = 0;
> +	dsc->drm.convert_rgb = 1;
> +	dsc->drm.vbr_enable = 0;
> +
> +	/* handle only bpp = bpc = 8 */
> +	for (i = 0; i < DSC_NUM_BUF_RANGES - 1 ; i++)
> +		dsc->drm.rc_buf_thresh[i] = dsi_dsc_rc_buf_thresh[i];
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < DSC_NUM_BUF_RANGES; i++) {
> +		dsc->drm.rc_range_params[i].range_min_qp = min_qp[i];
> +		dsc->drm.rc_range_params[i].range_max_qp = max_qp[i];
> +		dsc->drm.rc_range_params[i].range_bpg_offset = bpg_offset[i];
> +	}
> +
> +	dsc->drm.initial_offset = 6144;
> +	dsc->drm.initial_xmit_delay = 512;
> +	dsc->drm.initial_scale_value = 32;
> +	dsc->drm.first_line_bpg_offset = 12;
> +	dsc->drm.line_buf_depth = dsc->drm.bits_per_component + 1;
> +
> +	/* bpc 8 */
> +	dsc->drm.flatness_min_qp = 3;
> +	dsc->drm.flatness_max_qp = 12;
> +	dsc->det_thresh_flatness = 7;
> +	dsc->drm.rc_quant_incr_limit0 = 11;
> +	dsc->drm.rc_quant_incr_limit1 = 11;
> +	dsc->drm.mux_word_size = DSC_MUX_WORD_SIZE_8_10_BPC;
> +
> +	/* FIXME: need to call drm_dsc_compute_rc_parameters() so that rest of
> +	 * params are calculated
> +	 */
> +
> +	i = dsc->drm.slice_width % 3;
> +	switch (i) {
> +	case 0:
> +		dsc->slice_last_group_size = 2;
> +		break;
> +
> +	case 1:
> +		dsc->slice_last_group_size = 0;
> +		break;
> +
> +	case 2:
> +		dsc->slice_last_group_size = 0;
> +		break;
> +
> +	default:
> +		break;
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry