Re: [PATCH v2 07/13] drm/msm/dpu: Add SM6350 support

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On 27/04/2023 18:37, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> On 2023-04-21 00:31:16, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > Add SM6350 support to the DPU1 driver to enable display output.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> After addressing the comments from Dmitry (CURSOR0->DMA1 and
> CURSOR1->DMA2), this is:
>
> Reviewed-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> See below for some nits.

[...]

> > +static const struct dpu_mdp_cfg sm6350_mdp[] = {
> > +	{
> > +	.name = "top_0", .id = MDP_TOP,
> > +	.base = 0x0, .len = 0x494,
> > +	.features = 0,
> > +	.clk_ctrls[DPU_CLK_CTRL_VIG0] = { .reg_off = 0x2ac, .bit_off = 0 },
> > +	.clk_ctrls[DPU_CLK_CTRL_DMA0] = { .reg_off = 0x2ac, .bit_off = 8 },
> > +	.clk_ctrls[DPU_CLK_CTRL_DMA1] = { .reg_off = 0x2b4, .bit_off = 8 },
> > +	.clk_ctrls[DPU_CLK_CTRL_DMA2] = { .reg_off = 0x2c4, .bit_off = 8 },
> > +	.clk_ctrls[DPU_CLK_CTRL_REG_DMA] = { .reg_off = 0x2bc, .bit_off = 20 },
> > +	},
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct dpu_ctl_cfg sm6350_ctl[] = {
> > +	{
> > +	.name = "ctl_0", .id = CTL_0,
> > +	.base = 0x1000, .len = 0x1dc,
> > +	.features = BIT(DPU_CTL_ACTIVE_CFG),
> > +	.intr_start = DPU_IRQ_IDX(MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR2, 9),
> > +	},
> > +	{
> > +	.name = "ctl_1", .id = CTL_1,
> > +	.base = 0x1200, .len = 0x1dc,
> > +	.features = BIT(DPU_CTL_ACTIVE_CFG),
> > +	.intr_start = DPU_IRQ_IDX(MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR2, 10),
> > +	},
> > +	{
> > +	.name = "ctl_2", .id = CTL_2,
> > +	.base = 0x1400, .len = 0x1dc,
> > +	.features = BIT(DPU_CTL_ACTIVE_CFG),
> > +	.intr_start = DPU_IRQ_IDX(MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR2, 11),
> > +	},
> > +	{
> > +	.name = "ctl_3", .id = CTL_3,
> > +	.base = 0x1600, .len = 0x1dc,
> > +	.features = BIT(DPU_CTL_ACTIVE_CFG),
> > +	.intr_start = DPU_IRQ_IDX(MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR2, 12),
> > +	},
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct dpu_sspp_cfg sm6350_sspp[] = {
> > +	SSPP_BLK("sspp_0", SSPP_VIG0, 0x4000, 0x1f8, VIG_SC7180_MASK,
> > +		 sc7180_vig_sblk_0, 0,  SSPP_TYPE_VIG, DPU_CLK_CTRL_VIG0),
> > +	SSPP_BLK("sspp_8", SSPP_DMA0, 0x24000, 0x1f8, DMA_SDM845_MASK,
> > +		 sdm845_dma_sblk_0, 1, SSPP_TYPE_DMA, DPU_CLK_CTRL_DMA0),
> > +	SSPP_BLK("sspp_9", SSPP_DMA1, 0x26000, 0x1f8, DMA_CURSOR_SDM845_MASK,
> > +		 sdm845_dma_sblk_1, 5, SSPP_TYPE_DMA, DPU_CLK_CTRL_CURSOR0),
> > +	SSPP_BLK("sspp_10", SSPP_DMA2, 0x28000, 0x1f8, DMA_CURSOR_SDM845_MASK,
> > +		 sdm845_dma_sblk_2, 9, SSPP_TYPE_DMA, DPU_CLK_CTRL_CURSOR1),
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct dpu_lm_cfg sm6350_lm[] = {
> > +	LM_BLK("lm_0", LM_0, 0x44000, MIXER_SDM845_MASK,
> > +		&sc7180_lm_sblk, PINGPONG_0, LM_1, DSPP_0),
> > +	LM_BLK("lm_1", LM_1, 0x45000, MIXER_SDM845_MASK,
> > +		&sc7180_lm_sblk, PINGPONG_1, LM_0, 0),
>
> These two entries are indented with two tabs and have one character too
> many to align with the opening parenthesis on the previous line.  Can we
> please settle on a single style, as this commit mostly uses tabs+spaces
> to align with the opening parenthesis?
>
> Dmitry vouched for `cino=(0` (when in unclosed parenthesis, align next
> line with zero extra characters to the opening parenthesis), but I find
> double tabs more convenient as it doesn't require reindenting when
> changing the name of the macro (which happened too often in my INTF TE
> series).

I mainly vote for 'cino=(0' for indenting conditions (where double tab 
is confusing) and for function calls. I do not have a strong opinion 
about macros expansions. We have been using double-tab there, which is 
fine with me.

Another option (which I personally find more appealing, but it doesn't 
play well with the current guidelines) is to have all macro arguments in 
a single line. It makes it easier to compare things.

And another option would be to expand these macros up to some point. 
Previous experience with clock and interconnect drivers showed that 
expanding such multi-arg acros makes it _easier_ to handle the data. 
Counterintuitive, but true.

> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct dpu_dspp_cfg sm6350_dspp[] = {
> > +	DSPP_BLK("dspp_0", DSPP_0, 0x54000, DSPP_SC7180_MASK,
> > +		 &sm8150_dspp_sblk),
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct dpu_pingpong_cfg sm6350_pp[] = {
> > +	PP_BLK("pingpong_0", PINGPONG_0, 0x70000, PINGPONG_SM8150_MASK, 0, sdm845_pp_sblk,
> > +	       DPU_IRQ_IDX(MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 8),
> > +	       -1),
> > +	PP_BLK("pingpong_1", PINGPONG_1, 0x70800, PINGPONG_SM8150_MASK, 0, sdm845_pp_sblk,
> > +	       DPU_IRQ_IDX(MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 9),
> > +	       -1),

[skipped the rest]

--
With best wishes
Dmitry