Re: [PATCH RFC/WIP 1/4] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8750: Add display (MDSS) with Display CC

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 04:07:24PM -0700, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/28/2025 2:31 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > On 4/24/25 3:04 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > Add device nodes for entire display: MDSS, DPU, DSI, DSI PHYs,
> > > DisplayPort and Display Clock Controller.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > ---
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > +				mdp_opp_table: opp-table {
> > > +					compatible = "operating-points-v2";
> > > +
> > 
> > The computer tells me there's also a 156 MHz rate @ SVS_D1
> > 
> > Maybe Abhinav could chime in whether we should add it or not
> > 
> 
> Yes I also see a 156Mhz for LOW_SVS_D1 but we had a similar entry even for
> sm8650 and did not publish it in the dt.
> 
> It was present till sm8450.dtsi but dropped in sm8550/sm8650 even though
> LOW_SVS_D1 is present even on those.
> 
> I think the reason could be that the displays being used on the reference
> boards will need a pixel clock of atleast >= low_svs and the MDP clock
> usually depends on the value of the DSI pixel clock (which has a fixed
> relationship to the byte clock) to maintain the data rate. So as a result
> perhaps even if we add it, for most displays this level will be unused.
> 
> If we end up using displays which are so small that the pixel clock
> requirement will be even lower than low_svs, we can add those.
> 
> OR as an alternative, we can leave this patch as it is and add the
> low_svs_d1 for all chipsets which support it together in another series that
> way it will have the full context of why we are adding it otherwise it will
> look odd again of why sm8550/sm8650 was left out but added in sm8750.

I think it's better to describe hardware accurately, even if the
particular entry ends up being unused. I'd vote for this option.

> > [...]
> > 
> > > +				mdss_dsi_opp_table: opp-table {
> > > +					compatible = "operating-points-v2";
> > > +
> > 
> > Similarly there's a 140.63 MHz rate at SVS_D1, but it seems odd
> > with the decimals
> 
> For this one, yes its true that LOW_SVS_D1 is 140.63Mhz for sm8750 but this
> voltage corner was somehow never used for DSI byte clock again I am thinking
> this is because for the display resolutions we use, we will always be >=
> low_svs so the low_svs_d1 will never hit even if we add it.

Please add all voltage/frequency corners. Think about low-res DP or
low-res, low-rate WB.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry