From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
To: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>,
phone-devel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>,
~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@somainline.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>,
Martin Botka <martin.botka@somainline.org>,
Jami Kettunen <jami.kettunen@somainline.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com>,
Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>,
Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
Vladimir Lypak <vladimir.lypak@gmail.com>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org,
Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] drm/msm/dsi: Account for DSC's bits_per_pixel having 4 fractional bits
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2022 01:40:12 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b47e3be7-7de1-0f0c-8aa6-054e99dcaab3@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221004223504.vlfmxerdv47tlkdu@SoMainline.org>
On 05/10/2022 01:35, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> On 2022-10-04 17:45:50, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 at 22:08, Marijn Suijten
>> <marijn.suijten@somainline.org> wrote:
>> [..]
>>> - bytes_in_slice = DIV_ROUND_UP(dsc->slice_width * dsc->bits_per_pixel, 8);
>>> + bytes_in_slice = DIV_ROUND_UP(dsc->slice_width * bpp, 8);
>>
>>
>> bytes_in_slice = DIV_ROUND_UP(dsc->slice_width * dsc->bits_per_pixel, 8 * 16); ?
>
> Not necessarily a fan of this, it "hides" the fact that we are dealing
> with 4 fractional bits (1/16th precision, it is correct though); but
> since this is the only use of `bpp` I can change it and document this
> fact wiht a comment on top (including referencing the validation pointed
> out in dsi_populate_dsc_params()).
>
> Alternatively we can inline the `>> 4` here?
No, I don't think so. If we shift by 4 bits, we'd loose the fractional
part. DIV_ROUND_UP( .... , 8 * 16) ensures that we round it up rather
than just dropping it.
>
>>>
>>> dsc->slice_chunk_size = bytes_in_slice;
>>>
>>> @@ -913,6 +918,7 @@ static void dsi_timing_setup(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host, bool is_bonded_dsi)
>>> u32 va_end = va_start + mode->vdisplay;
>>> u32 hdisplay = mode->hdisplay;
>>> u32 wc;
>>> + int ret;
>>>
>>> DBG("");
>>>
>>> @@ -948,7 +954,9 @@ static void dsi_timing_setup(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host, bool is_bonded_dsi)
>>> /* we do the calculations for dsc parameters here so that
>>> * panel can use these parameters
>>> */
>>> - dsi_populate_dsc_params(dsc);
>>> + ret = dsi_populate_dsc_params(dsc);
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + return;
>>>
>>> /* Divide the display by 3 but keep back/font porch and
>>> * pulse width same
>>> @@ -1229,6 +1237,10 @@ static int dsi_cmd_dma_add(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host,
>>> if (packet.size < len)
>>> memset(data + packet.size, 0xff, len - packet.size);
>>>
>>> + if (msg->type == MIPI_DSI_PICTURE_PARAMETER_SET)
>>> + print_hex_dump(KERN_DEBUG, "ALL:", DUMP_PREFIX_NONE,
>>> + 16, 1, data, len, false);
>>> +
>>> if (cfg_hnd->ops->tx_buf_put)
>>> cfg_hnd->ops->tx_buf_put(msm_host);
>>>
>>> @@ -1786,6 +1798,12 @@ static int dsi_populate_dsc_params(struct drm_dsc_config *dsc)
>>> int data;
>>> int final_value, final_scale;
>>> int i;
>>> + int bpp = dsc->bits_per_pixel >> 4;
>>> +
>>> + if (dsc->bits_per_pixel & 0xf) {
>>> + pr_err("DSI does not support fractional bits_per_pixel\n");
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>>
>>> dsc->rc_model_size = 8192;
>>> dsc->first_line_bpg_offset = 12;
>>> @@ -1807,7 +1825,7 @@ static int dsi_populate_dsc_params(struct drm_dsc_config *dsc)
>>> }
>>>
>>> dsc->initial_offset = 6144; /* Not bpp 12 */
>>> - if (dsc->bits_per_pixel != 8)
>>> + if (bpp != 8)
>>> dsc->initial_offset = 2048; /* bpp = 12 */
>>>
>>> mux_words_size = 48; /* bpc == 8/10 */
>>> @@ -1830,16 +1848,16 @@ static int dsi_populate_dsc_params(struct drm_dsc_config *dsc)
>>> * params are calculated
>>> */
>>> groups_per_line = DIV_ROUND_UP(dsc->slice_width, 3);
>>> - dsc->slice_chunk_size = dsc->slice_width * dsc->bits_per_pixel / 8;
>>> - if ((dsc->slice_width * dsc->bits_per_pixel) % 8)
>>> + dsc->slice_chunk_size = dsc->slice_width * bpp / 8;
>>> + if ((dsc->slice_width * bpp) % 8)
>>
>> One can use fixed point math here too:
>>
>> dsc->slice_chunk_size = (dsc->slice_width * dsc->bits_per_pixel + 8 *
>> 16 - 1)/ (8 * 16);
>
> Good catch, this is effectively a DIV_ROUND_UP() that we happened to
> call bytes_in_slice above...
>
> Shall I tackle this in the same patch, or insert another cleanup patch?
It's up to you. I usually prefer separate patches, even if just to ease
bisecting between unrelated changes.
>
> In fact dsi_populate_dsc_params() is called first (this comment),
> followed by dsi_update_dsc_timing(), meaning that slice_chunk_size is
> already provided and shouldn't be recomputed.
>
>>> dsc->slice_chunk_size++;
>>>
>>> /* rbs-min */
>>> min_rate_buffer_size = dsc->rc_model_size - dsc->initial_offset +
>>> - dsc->initial_xmit_delay * dsc->bits_per_pixel +
>>> + dsc->initial_xmit_delay * bpp +
>>> groups_per_line * dsc->first_line_bpg_offset;
>>>
>>> - hrd_delay = DIV_ROUND_UP(min_rate_buffer_size, dsc->bits_per_pixel);
>>> + hrd_delay = DIV_ROUND_UP(min_rate_buffer_size, bpp);
>>>
>>> dsc->initial_dec_delay = hrd_delay - dsc->initial_xmit_delay;
>>>
>>> @@ -1862,7 +1880,7 @@ static int dsi_populate_dsc_params(struct drm_dsc_config *dsc)
>>> data = 2048 * (dsc->rc_model_size - dsc->initial_offset + num_extra_mux_bits);
>>> dsc->slice_bpg_offset = DIV_ROUND_UP(data, groups_total);
>>>
>>> - target_bpp_x16 = dsc->bits_per_pixel * 16;
>>> + target_bpp_x16 = bpp * 16;
>>>
>>> data = (dsc->initial_xmit_delay * target_bpp_x16) / 16;
>>
>> It looks like this can be replaced with the direct multiplication
>> instead, maybe with support for overflow/rounding.
>
> Thanks, Abhinav pointed out the same in patch 1/5 which originally
> cleaned up most - but apparently not all! - of the math here. I don't
> think this value should ever overlow, nor does this `* 16 / 16` have any
> effect on rounding (that'd be `/ 16 * 16`).
Ack
>
>>> final_value = dsc->rc_model_size - data + num_extra_mux_bits;
>>> --
>>> 2.37.3
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> With best wishes
>> Dmitry
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-04 22:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-01 19:08 [PATCH 0/5] drm: Fix math issues in MSM DSC implementation Marijn Suijten
2022-10-01 19:08 ` [PATCH 1/5] drm/msm/dsi: Remove useless math in DSC calculation Marijn Suijten
2022-10-01 20:19 ` Konrad Dybcio
2022-10-04 0:26 ` Bjorn Andersson
2022-10-04 14:33 ` [Freedreno] " Abhinav Kumar
2022-10-04 22:23 ` Marijn Suijten
2022-10-01 19:08 ` [PATCH 2/5] drm/msm/dsi: Remove repeated calculation of slice_per_intf Marijn Suijten
2022-10-01 20:22 ` Konrad Dybcio
2022-10-04 0:30 ` Bjorn Andersson
2022-10-04 14:41 ` Abhinav Kumar
2022-10-01 19:08 ` [PATCH 3/5] drm/msm/dsi: Account for DSC's bits_per_pixel having 4 fractional bits Marijn Suijten
2022-10-01 20:28 ` Konrad Dybcio
2022-10-01 20:37 ` Marijn Suijten
2022-10-04 14:45 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2022-10-04 22:35 ` Marijn Suijten
2022-10-04 22:40 ` Dmitry Baryshkov [this message]
2022-10-04 22:56 ` Marijn Suijten
2022-10-01 19:08 ` [PATCH 4/5] drm/msm/dpu1: " Marijn Suijten
2022-10-04 14:35 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2022-10-04 17:03 ` Abhinav Kumar
2022-10-04 22:11 ` Marijn Suijten
2022-10-05 14:19 ` Abhinav Kumar
2022-10-05 18:45 ` Marijn Suijten
2022-10-01 19:08 ` [PATCH 5/5] drm/dsc: Prevent negative BPG offsets from shadowing adjacent bitfields Marijn Suijten
2022-10-01 20:23 ` Marijn Suijten
2022-10-04 14:41 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2022-10-04 21:48 ` Marijn Suijten
2022-10-04 20:22 ` Abhinav Kumar
2022-10-04 21:57 ` Marijn Suijten
2022-10-04 22:31 ` Abhinav Kumar
2022-10-04 22:39 ` Marijn Suijten
2022-10-05 15:33 ` Abhinav Kumar
2022-10-05 18:29 ` Marijn Suijten
2022-10-04 4:42 ` [PATCH 0/5] drm: Fix math issues in MSM DSC implementation Vinod Koul
2022-10-04 9:51 ` Marijn Suijten
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=b47e3be7-7de1-0f0c-8aa6-054e99dcaab3@linaro.org \
--to=dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org \
--cc=airlied@linux.ie \
--cc=alexander.deucher@amd.com \
--cc=angelogioacchino.delregno@somainline.org \
--cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=dianders@chromium.org \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jami.kettunen@somainline.org \
--cc=javierm@redhat.com \
--cc=konrad.dybcio@somainline.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marex@denx.de \
--cc=marijn.suijten@somainline.org \
--cc=martin.botka@somainline.org \
--cc=phone-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com \
--cc=robdclark@gmail.com \
--cc=sean@poorly.run \
--cc=tzimmermann@suse.de \
--cc=vkoul@kernel.org \
--cc=vladimir.lypak@gmail.com \
--cc=~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®