Re: [PATCH v5 21/24] drm/msm/dpu: Implement 10-bit color alpha for v12.0 DPU

[Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com>]

On 5/5/2025 5:24 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 03:00:51PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> v12.0 DPU on SM8750 comes with 10-bit color alpha.  Add register
>> differences and new implementations of setup_alpha_out(),
>> setup_border_color() and setup_blend_config().
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v4:
>> 1. Lowercase hex, use spaces for define indentation
>> 2. _dpu_crtc_setup_blend_cfg(): pass mdss_ver instead of ctl
>>
>> Changes in v3:
>> 1. New patch, split from previous big DPU v12.0.
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_crtc.c  | 19 ++++---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_lm.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>   2 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> @@ -175,12 +246,19 @@ struct dpu_hw_mixer *dpu_hw_lm_init(struct drm_device *dev,
>>   	c->idx = cfg->id;
>>   	c->cap = cfg;
>>   	c->ops.setup_mixer_out = dpu_hw_lm_setup_out;
>> -	if (mdss_ver->core_major_ver >= 4)
>> +	if (mdss_ver->core_major_ver >= 12)
>> +		c->ops.setup_blend_config = dpu_hw_lm_setup_blend_config_combined_alpha_v12;
>> +	else if (mdss_ver->core_major_ver >= 4)
>>   		c->ops.setup_blend_config = dpu_hw_lm_setup_blend_config_combined_alpha;
>>   	else
>>   		c->ops.setup_blend_config = dpu_hw_lm_setup_blend_config;
>> -	c->ops.setup_alpha_out = dpu_hw_lm_setup_color3;
>> -	c->ops.setup_border_color = dpu_hw_lm_setup_border_color;
>> +	if (mdss_ver->core_major_ver < 12) {
>> +		c->ops.setup_alpha_out = dpu_hw_lm_setup_color3;
>> +		c->ops.setup_border_color = dpu_hw_lm_setup_border_color;
>> +	} else {
>> +		c->ops.setup_alpha_out = dpu_hw_lm_setup_color3_v12;
>> +		c->ops.setup_border_color = dpu_hw_lm_setup_border_color_v12;
>> +	}
> 
> I tried picking up these patches, and choked on this one. This heavility
> depends on the DPU fetures bits rework patchset (mentioned in the cover
> letter, it's fine), but granted the lack of the reviews / updates on
> that patchset I can neither apply this patch (and its dependencies) nor
> steer Krzysztof away from basing on that patchset (this patch provides a
> perfect example of why that series is useful and correct).
> 
> Abhinav, could you please continue reviewing that patch series?
> 

I think we could have continued this series on top of the current 
feature bits model and I thought we were doing that based on 
#linux-arm-msm chats in Feb between you and me. Not sure what happened 
there.

Regarding the review, myself and Jessica have discussed this last week 
and Jessica will take over the review of that series and please work 
with addressing the comments provided there by her.