Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/rockchip: vop2: configure layers for vp3 on rk3588

[Heiko Stübner]

Am Freitag, 3. Mai 2024, 14:57:03 CEST schrieb Quentin Schulz:
> Hi Heiko,
> 
> On 4/25/24 9:55 PM, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> > From: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@xxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > The rk3588 VOP2 has 4 video-ports, yet the driver currently only
> > configures the first 3, as used on the rk3568.
> > 
> 
> I'm wondering whether we should update the drawing at the top of the 
> driver then?
> 
> > Add another block to configure the vp3 as well, if applicable.
> > 
> > Fixes: 5a028e8f062f ("drm/rockchip: vop2: Add support for rk3588")
> > Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.h |  1 +
> >   2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.c
> > index 523880a4e8e74..1a327a9ed7ee4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.c
> > @@ -2303,6 +2303,7 @@ static void vop2_setup_alpha(struct vop2_video_port *vp)
> >   static void vop2_setup_layer_mixer(struct vop2_video_port *vp)
> >   {
> >   	struct vop2 *vop2 = vp->vop2;
> > +	const struct vop2_data *vop2_data = vop2->data;
> >   	struct drm_plane *plane;
> >   	u32 layer_sel = 0;
> >   	u32 port_sel;
> > @@ -2344,6 +2345,17 @@ static void vop2_setup_layer_mixer(struct vop2_video_port *vp)
> >   	else
> >   		port_sel |= FIELD_PREP(RK3568_OVL_PORT_SET__PORT2_MUX, 8);
> >   
> > +	/* configure vp3 */
> > +	if (vop2_data->soc_id == 3588) {
> 
> I think it'd be smarter to check against vop2->data->nr_vps >= 4; so 
> that we don't need to maintain a list of SoCs that support a specific 
> number of video ports.

probably ;-)

> 
> > +		struct vop2_video_port *vp3 = &vop2->vps[3];
> 
> This is always possible because vps is statically allocated for 4 items, 
> c.f. struct vop2_video_port vps[ROCKCHIP_MAX_CRTC]; so we don't 
> necessarily need it in this specific location and can group it with the 
> others. Cosmetic suggestion though.
> 
> Otherwise, the change itself makes sense to me, so:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@xxxxxxxxx>

though comments from Andy from Rockchip in another thread suggest that
this is not necessary at all, as the "last" vp somehow has a hardware lock
to take the remaining layers or so.

And while tracking down dsi issues I had a "binary" state of
"gray display" without this patch and working DSI with it, in the last days
I haven't been able to reproduce this anymore.

So I guess I'll fix up the first patch according to your comment and keep
this change here for later.


Heiko