Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2021-10-05 18:43:16)
On Tue 05 Oct 17:43 PDT 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2021-10-05 16:13:21)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c index bdaf227f05dc..674cddfee5b0 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_display.c @@ -1233,7 +1239,7 @@ static int dp_display_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) if (!dp) return -ENOMEM;
desc = dp_display_get_desc(pdev);
desc = dp_display_get_desc(pdev, &dp->id);I'm sad that dp->id has to match the number in the SoC specific dpu_intf_cfg array in drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.c still. Is there any way we can avoid that? Also, notice how those arrays already have INTF_DP macros, which makes me think that it may be better to connect this to those arrays instead of making an msm_dp_desc structure and then make sure the 'type' member matches a connector type number. Otherwise this code is super fragile.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're proposing. Or which part you consider fragile, the indices of the INTF_DP instances aren't going to move around...
I have N instances of the DP driver that I need to match to N entries from the platform specific intf array, I need some stable reference between them. When I started this journey I figured I could rely on the of_graph between the DPU and the interface controllers, but the values used there today are just bogus, so that was a no go.
We can use whatever, as long as _dpu_kms_initialize_displayport() can come up with an identifier to put in h_tile_instance[0] so that dpu_encoder_setup_display() can find the relevant INTF.
To make it more concrete we can look at sc7180
static const struct dpu_intf_cfg sc7180_intf[] = { INTF_BLK("intf_0", INTF_0, 0x6A000, INTF_DP, 0, 24, INTF_SC7180_MASK, MDP_SSPP_TOP0_INTR, 24, 25), ^ |
intf0 is irrelevant. Also the address is irrelevant. But here we have a zero, the number after INTF_DP, and that is very relevant. That number needs to match the dp->id. Somewhere we have a match between controller_id and dp->id in the code.