From: Mikita Lipski mikita.lipski@amd.com
We shouldn't compare int with unsigned long to find the max value and since we are not expecting negative value returned from compute_offset we should make this function return unsigned long so we can compare the values when computing rc parameters.
Cc: Nikola Cornij nikola.cornij@amd.com Cc: Harry Wentland harry.wentland@amd.com Signed-off-by: Mikita Lipski mikita.lipski@amd.com --- drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c index 74f3527f567d..ec40604ab6a2 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c @@ -245,11 +245,11 @@ void drm_dsc_pps_payload_pack(struct drm_dsc_picture_parameter_set *pps_payload, } EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_dsc_pps_payload_pack);
-static int compute_offset(struct drm_dsc_config *vdsc_cfg, int pixels_per_group, +static unsigned long compute_offset(struct drm_dsc_config *vdsc_cfg, int pixels_per_group, int groups_per_line, int grpcnt) { - int offset = 0; - int grpcnt_id = DIV_ROUND_UP(vdsc_cfg->initial_xmit_delay, pixels_per_group); + unsigned long offset = 0; + unsigned long grpcnt_id = DIV_ROUND_UP(vdsc_cfg->initial_xmit_delay, pixels_per_group);
if (grpcnt <= grpcnt_id) offset = DIV_ROUND_UP(grpcnt * pixels_per_group * vdsc_cfg->bits_per_pixel, 16);
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 09:45:26AM -0500, mikita.lipski@amd.com wrote:
From: Mikita Lipski mikita.lipski@amd.com
We shouldn't compare int with unsigned long to find the max value and since we are not expecting negative value returned from compute_offset we should make this function return unsigned long so we can compare the values when computing rc parameters.
Why are there other unsigned longs in dsc parameter computation in the first place?
Cc: Nikola Cornij nikola.cornij@amd.com Cc: Harry Wentland harry.wentland@amd.com Signed-off-by: Mikita Lipski mikita.lipski@amd.com
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c index 74f3527f567d..ec40604ab6a2 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c @@ -245,11 +245,11 @@ void drm_dsc_pps_payload_pack(struct drm_dsc_picture_parameter_set *pps_payload, } EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_dsc_pps_payload_pack);
-static int compute_offset(struct drm_dsc_config *vdsc_cfg, int pixels_per_group, +static unsigned long compute_offset(struct drm_dsc_config *vdsc_cfg, int pixels_per_group, int groups_per_line, int grpcnt) {
- int offset = 0;
- int grpcnt_id = DIV_ROUND_UP(vdsc_cfg->initial_xmit_delay, pixels_per_group);
unsigned long offset = 0;
unsigned long grpcnt_id = DIV_ROUND_UP(vdsc_cfg->initial_xmit_delay, pixels_per_group);
if (grpcnt <= grpcnt_id) offset = DIV_ROUND_UP(grpcnt * pixels_per_group * vdsc_cfg->bits_per_pixel, 16);
-- 2.17.1
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On 19/11/2019 09:56, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 09:45:26AM -0500, mikita.lipski@amd.com wrote:
From: Mikita Lipski mikita.lipski@amd.com
We shouldn't compare int with unsigned long to find the max value and since we are not expecting negative value returned from compute_offset we should make this function return unsigned long so we can compare the values when computing rc parameters.
Why are there other unsigned longs in dsc parameter computation in the first place?
I believe it was initially set to be unsigned long for variable consistency, when we ported intel_compute_rc_parameters into drm_dsc_compute_rc_parameters. But now that I look at it, we can actually just set them to u32 or u64, as nothing should exceed that.
Cc: Nikola Cornij nikola.cornij@amd.com Cc: Harry Wentland harry.wentland@amd.com Signed-off-by: Mikita Lipski mikita.lipski@amd.com
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c index 74f3527f567d..ec40604ab6a2 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c @@ -245,11 +245,11 @@ void drm_dsc_pps_payload_pack(struct drm_dsc_picture_parameter_set *pps_payload, } EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_dsc_pps_payload_pack);
-static int compute_offset(struct drm_dsc_config *vdsc_cfg, int pixels_per_group, +static unsigned long compute_offset(struct drm_dsc_config *vdsc_cfg, int pixels_per_group, int groups_per_line, int grpcnt) {
- int offset = 0;
- int grpcnt_id = DIV_ROUND_UP(vdsc_cfg->initial_xmit_delay, pixels_per_group);
unsigned long offset = 0;
unsigned long grpcnt_id = DIV_ROUND_UP(vdsc_cfg->initial_xmit_delay, pixels_per_group);
if (grpcnt <= grpcnt_id) offset = DIV_ROUND_UP(grpcnt * pixels_per_group * vdsc_cfg->bits_per_pixel, 16);
-- 2.17.1
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
If you're going to make all of them the same, then u64, please.
This is because I'm not sure if calculations require 64-bit at some stage.
-----Original Message----- From: Lipski, Mikita Mikita.Lipski@amd.com Sent: November 19, 2019 10:08 AM To: Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com; Lipski, Mikita Mikita.Lipski@amd.com Cc: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; Cornij, Nikola Nikola.Cornij@amd.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/dsc: Return unsigned long on compute offset
On 19/11/2019 09:56, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 09:45:26AM -0500, mikita.lipski@amd.com wrote:
From: Mikita Lipski mikita.lipski@amd.com
We shouldn't compare int with unsigned long to find the max value and since we are not expecting negative value returned from compute_offset we should make this function return unsigned long so we can compare the values when computing rc parameters.
Why are there other unsigned longs in dsc parameter computation in the first place?
I believe it was initially set to be unsigned long for variable consistency, when we ported intel_compute_rc_parameters into drm_dsc_compute_rc_parameters. But now that I look at it, we can actually just set them to u32 or u64, as nothing should exceed that.
Cc: Nikola Cornij nikola.cornij@amd.com Cc: Harry Wentland harry.wentland@amd.com Signed-off-by: Mikita Lipski mikita.lipski@amd.com
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c index 74f3527f567d..ec40604ab6a2 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c @@ -245,11 +245,11 @@ void drm_dsc_pps_payload_pack(struct drm_dsc_picture_parameter_set *pps_payload, } EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_dsc_pps_payload_pack);
-static int compute_offset(struct drm_dsc_config *vdsc_cfg, int pixels_per_group, +static unsigned long compute_offset(struct drm_dsc_config *vdsc_cfg, int pixels_per_group, int groups_per_line, int grpcnt) {
- int offset = 0;
- int grpcnt_id = DIV_ROUND_UP(vdsc_cfg->initial_xmit_delay, pixels_per_group);
unsigned long offset = 0;
unsigned long grpcnt_id = DIV_ROUND_UP(vdsc_cfg->initial_xmit_delay, pixels_per_group);
if (grpcnt <= grpcnt_id) offset = DIV_ROUND_UP(grpcnt * pixels_per_group * vdsc_cfg->bits_per_pixel, 16);
-- 2.17.1
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 04:59:40PM +0000, Cornij, Nikola wrote:
If you're going to make all of them the same, then u64, please.
This is because I'm not sure if calculations require 64-bit at some stage.
If it does then it's already broken. Someone should probably figure out what's actally needed instead of shooting ducks with an icbm.
-----Original Message----- From: Lipski, Mikita Mikita.Lipski@amd.com Sent: November 19, 2019 10:08 AM To: Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com; Lipski, Mikita Mikita.Lipski@amd.com Cc: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; Cornij, Nikola Nikola.Cornij@amd.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/dsc: Return unsigned long on compute offset
On 19/11/2019 09:56, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 09:45:26AM -0500, mikita.lipski@amd.com wrote:
From: Mikita Lipski mikita.lipski@amd.com
We shouldn't compare int with unsigned long to find the max value and since we are not expecting negative value returned from compute_offset we should make this function return unsigned long so we can compare the values when computing rc parameters.
Why are there other unsigned longs in dsc parameter computation in the first place?
I believe it was initially set to be unsigned long for variable consistency, when we ported intel_compute_rc_parameters into drm_dsc_compute_rc_parameters. But now that I look at it, we can actually just set them to u32 or u64, as nothing should exceed that.
Cc: Nikola Cornij nikola.cornij@amd.com Cc: Harry Wentland harry.wentland@amd.com Signed-off-by: Mikita Lipski mikita.lipski@amd.com
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c index 74f3527f567d..ec40604ab6a2 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c @@ -245,11 +245,11 @@ void drm_dsc_pps_payload_pack(struct drm_dsc_picture_parameter_set *pps_payload, } EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_dsc_pps_payload_pack);
-static int compute_offset(struct drm_dsc_config *vdsc_cfg, int pixels_per_group, +static unsigned long compute_offset(struct drm_dsc_config *vdsc_cfg, int pixels_per_group, int groups_per_line, int grpcnt) {
- int offset = 0;
- int grpcnt_id = DIV_ROUND_UP(vdsc_cfg->initial_xmit_delay, pixels_per_group);
unsigned long offset = 0;
unsigned long grpcnt_id = DIV_ROUND_UP(vdsc_cfg->initial_xmit_delay, pixels_per_group);
if (grpcnt <= grpcnt_id) offset = DIV_ROUND_UP(grpcnt * pixels_per_group * vdsc_cfg->bits_per_pixel, 16);
-- 2.17.1
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
-- Thanks, Mikita Lipski Software Engineer 2, AMD mikita.lipski@amd.com
On 19/11/2019 12:11, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 04:59:40PM +0000, Cornij, Nikola wrote:
If you're going to make all of them the same, then u64, please.
This is because I'm not sure if calculations require 64-bit at some stage.
If it does then it's already broken. Someone should probably figure out what's actally needed instead of shooting ducks with an icbm.
I don't think it is not broken, cause I'm currently testing DSC. The patch I sent early simply fixes the error of comparing signed and unsigned variables.
We can then submit a second patch addressing the issue of using unsigned long int instead of u32. Also, since the variables in drm_dsc_config structure are all of type u8 and u16, the calculation values shouldn't exceed the size of u32.
Thanks
-----Original Message----- From: Lipski, Mikita Mikita.Lipski@amd.com Sent: November 19, 2019 10:08 AM To: Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com; Lipski, Mikita Mikita.Lipski@amd.com Cc: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; Cornij, Nikola Nikola.Cornij@amd.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/dsc: Return unsigned long on compute offset
On 19/11/2019 09:56, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 09:45:26AM -0500, mikita.lipski@amd.com wrote:
From: Mikita Lipski mikita.lipski@amd.com
We shouldn't compare int with unsigned long to find the max value and since we are not expecting negative value returned from compute_offset we should make this function return unsigned long so we can compare the values when computing rc parameters.
Why are there other unsigned longs in dsc parameter computation in the first place?
I believe it was initially set to be unsigned long for variable consistency, when we ported intel_compute_rc_parameters into drm_dsc_compute_rc_parameters. But now that I look at it, we can actually just set them to u32 or u64, as nothing should exceed that.
Cc: Nikola Cornij nikola.cornij@amd.com Cc: Harry Wentland harry.wentland@amd.com Signed-off-by: Mikita Lipski mikita.lipski@amd.com
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c index 74f3527f567d..ec40604ab6a2 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c @@ -245,11 +245,11 @@ void drm_dsc_pps_payload_pack(struct drm_dsc_picture_parameter_set *pps_payload, } EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_dsc_pps_payload_pack);
-static int compute_offset(struct drm_dsc_config *vdsc_cfg, int pixels_per_group, +static unsigned long compute_offset(struct drm_dsc_config *vdsc_cfg, int pixels_per_group, int groups_per_line, int grpcnt) {
- int offset = 0;
- int grpcnt_id = DIV_ROUND_UP(vdsc_cfg->initial_xmit_delay, pixels_per_group);
unsigned long offset = 0;
unsigned long grpcnt_id = DIV_ROUND_UP(vdsc_cfg->initial_xmit_delay, pixels_per_group);
if (grpcnt <= grpcnt_id) offset = DIV_ROUND_UP(grpcnt * pixels_per_group * vdsc_cfg->bits_per_pixel, 16);
-- 2.17.1
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
-- Thanks, Mikita Lipski Software Engineer 2, AMD mikita.lipski@amd.com
On 19/11/2019 16:09, Mikita Lipski wrote:
On 19/11/2019 12:11, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 04:59:40PM +0000, Cornij, Nikola wrote:
If you're going to make all of them the same, then u64, please.
This is because I'm not sure if calculations require 64-bit at some stage.
If it does then it's already broken. Someone should probably figure out what's actally needed instead of shooting ducks with an icbm.
Sorry made a type below. Supposed to be "I don't think it is broken"
I don't think it is not broken, cause I'm currently testing DSC. The patch I sent early simply fixes the error of comparing signed and unsigned variables.
We can then submit a second patch addressing the issue of using unsigned long int instead of u32. Also, since the variables in drm_dsc_config structure are all of type u8 and u16, the calculation values shouldn't exceed the size of u32.
Thanks
-----Original Message----- From: Lipski, Mikita Mikita.Lipski@amd.com Sent: November 19, 2019 10:08 AM To: Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com; Lipski, Mikita Mikita.Lipski@amd.com Cc: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; Cornij, Nikola Nikola.Cornij@amd.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/dsc: Return unsigned long on compute offset
On 19/11/2019 09:56, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 09:45:26AM -0500, mikita.lipski@amd.com wrote:
From: Mikita Lipski mikita.lipski@amd.com
We shouldn't compare int with unsigned long to find the max value and since we are not expecting negative value returned from compute_offset we should make this function return unsigned long so we can compare the values when computing rc parameters.
Why are there other unsigned longs in dsc parameter computation in the first place?
I believe it was initially set to be unsigned long for variable consistency, when we ported intel_compute_rc_parameters into drm_dsc_compute_rc_parameters. But now that I look at it, we can actually just set them to u32 or u64, as nothing should exceed that.
Cc: Nikola Cornij nikola.cornij@amd.com Cc: Harry Wentland harry.wentland@amd.com Signed-off-by: Mikita Lipski mikita.lipski@amd.com
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c index 74f3527f567d..ec40604ab6a2 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c @@ -245,11 +245,11 @@ void drm_dsc_pps_payload_pack(struct drm_dsc_picture_parameter_set *pps_payload, } EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_dsc_pps_payload_pack); -static int compute_offset(struct drm_dsc_config *vdsc_cfg, int pixels_per_group, +static unsigned long compute_offset(struct drm_dsc_config *vdsc_cfg, int pixels_per_group, int groups_per_line, int grpcnt) { - int offset = 0; - int grpcnt_id = DIV_ROUND_UP(vdsc_cfg->initial_xmit_delay, pixels_per_group); + unsigned long offset = 0; + unsigned long grpcnt_id = DIV_ROUND_UP(vdsc_cfg->initial_xmit_delay, pixels_per_group); if (grpcnt <= grpcnt_id) offset = DIV_ROUND_UP(grpcnt * pixels_per_group * vdsc_cfg->bits_per_pixel, 16); -- 2.17.1
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
-- Thanks, Mikita Lipski Software Engineer 2, AMD mikita.lipski@amd.com
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 04:11:43PM -0500, Mikita Lipski wrote:
On 19/11/2019 16:09, Mikita Lipski wrote:
On 19/11/2019 12:11, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 04:59:40PM +0000, Cornij, Nikola wrote:
If you're going to make all of them the same, then u64, please.
This is because I'm not sure if calculations require 64-bit at some stage.
If it does then it's already broken. Someone should probably figure out what's actally needed instead of shooting ducks with an icbm.
Sorry made a type below. Supposed to be "I don't think it is broken"
I mean that it's broken if it actually needs u64 when it's currently using unsigned long. So u64 is either overkill or the code is currently broken.
I don't think it is not broken, cause I'm currently testing DSC. The patch I sent early simply fixes the error of comparing signed and unsigned variables.
We can then submit a second patch addressing the issue of using unsigned long int instead of u32. Also, since the variables in drm_dsc_config structure are all of type u8 and u16, the calculation values shouldn't exceed the size of u32.
Thanks
-----Original Message----- From: Lipski, Mikita Mikita.Lipski@amd.com Sent: November 19, 2019 10:08 AM To: Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com; Lipski, Mikita Mikita.Lipski@amd.com Cc: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; Cornij, Nikola Nikola.Cornij@amd.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/dsc: Return unsigned long on compute offset
On 19/11/2019 09:56, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 09:45:26AM -0500, mikita.lipski@amd.com wrote:
From: Mikita Lipski mikita.lipski@amd.com
We shouldn't compare int with unsigned long to find the max value and since we are not expecting negative value returned from compute_offset we should make this function return unsigned long so we can compare the values when computing rc parameters.
Why are there other unsigned longs in dsc parameter computation in the first place?
I believe it was initially set to be unsigned long for variable consistency, when we ported intel_compute_rc_parameters into drm_dsc_compute_rc_parameters. But now that I look at it, we can actually just set them to u32 or u64, as nothing should exceed that.
Cc: Nikola Cornij nikola.cornij@amd.com Cc: Harry Wentland harry.wentland@amd.com Signed-off-by: Mikita Lipski mikita.lipski@amd.com
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c index 74f3527f567d..ec40604ab6a2 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c @@ -245,11 +245,11 @@ void drm_dsc_pps_payload_pack(struct drm_dsc_picture_parameter_set *pps_payload, } EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_dsc_pps_payload_pack); -static int compute_offset(struct drm_dsc_config *vdsc_cfg, int pixels_per_group, +static unsigned long compute_offset(struct drm_dsc_config *vdsc_cfg, int pixels_per_group, int groups_per_line, int grpcnt) { - int offset = 0; - int grpcnt_id = DIV_ROUND_UP(vdsc_cfg->initial_xmit_delay, pixels_per_group); + unsigned long offset = 0; + unsigned long grpcnt_id = DIV_ROUND_UP(vdsc_cfg->initial_xmit_delay, pixels_per_group); if (grpcnt <= grpcnt_id) offset = DIV_ROUND_UP(grpcnt * pixels_per_group * vdsc_cfg->bits_per_pixel, 16); -- 2.17.1
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
-- Thanks, Mikita Lipski Software Engineer 2, AMD mikita.lipski@amd.com
-- Thanks, Mikita Lipski Software Engineer 2, AMD mikita.lipski@amd.com
On 20/11/2019 05:17, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 04:11:43PM -0500, Mikita Lipski wrote:
On 19/11/2019 16:09, Mikita Lipski wrote:
On 19/11/2019 12:11, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 04:59:40PM +0000, Cornij, Nikola wrote:
If you're going to make all of them the same, then u64, please.
This is because I'm not sure if calculations require 64-bit at some stage.
If it does then it's already broken. Someone should probably figure out what's actally needed instead of shooting ducks with an icbm.
Sorry made a type below. Supposed to be "I don't think it is broken"
I mean that it's broken if it actually needs u64 when it's currently using unsigned long. So u64 is either overkill or the code is currently broken.
None of the calculations exceed u32, so u64 would be an overkill, since none of the variables in the structure exceed 16 bits. Therefore u32 is enough.
I don't think it is not broken, cause I'm currently testing DSC. The patch I sent early simply fixes the error of comparing signed and unsigned variables.
We can then submit a second patch addressing the issue of using unsigned long int instead of u32. Also, since the variables in drm_dsc_config structure are all of type u8 and u16, the calculation values shouldn't exceed the size of u32.
Thanks
-----Original Message----- From: Lipski, Mikita Mikita.Lipski@amd.com Sent: November 19, 2019 10:08 AM To: Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com; Lipski, Mikita Mikita.Lipski@amd.com Cc: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; Cornij, Nikola Nikola.Cornij@amd.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/dsc: Return unsigned long on compute offset
On 19/11/2019 09:56, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 09:45:26AM -0500, mikita.lipski@amd.com wrote: > From: Mikita Lipski mikita.lipski@amd.com > > We shouldn't compare int with unsigned long to find the max value and > since we are not expecting negative value returned from > compute_offset we should make this function return unsigned long so > we can compare the values when computing rc parameters.
Why are there other unsigned longs in dsc parameter computation in the first place?
I believe it was initially set to be unsigned long for variable consistency, when we ported intel_compute_rc_parameters into drm_dsc_compute_rc_parameters. But now that I look at it, we can actually just set them to u32 or u64, as nothing should exceed that.
> > Cc: Nikola Cornij nikola.cornij@amd.com > Cc: Harry Wentland harry.wentland@amd.com > Signed-off-by: Mikita Lipski mikita.lipski@amd.com > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c > index 74f3527f567d..ec40604ab6a2 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dsc.c > @@ -245,11 +245,11 @@ void drm_dsc_pps_payload_pack(struct > drm_dsc_picture_parameter_set *pps_payload, > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_dsc_pps_payload_pack); > -static int compute_offset(struct drm_dsc_config *vdsc_cfg, int > pixels_per_group, > +static unsigned long compute_offset(struct drm_dsc_config > *vdsc_cfg, int pixels_per_group, > int groups_per_line, int grpcnt) > { > - int offset = 0; > - int grpcnt_id = DIV_ROUND_UP(vdsc_cfg->initial_xmit_delay, > pixels_per_group); > + unsigned long offset = 0; > + unsigned long grpcnt_id = > DIV_ROUND_UP(vdsc_cfg->initial_xmit_delay, pixels_per_group); > if (grpcnt <= grpcnt_id) > offset = DIV_ROUND_UP(grpcnt * pixels_per_group * > vdsc_cfg->bits_per_pixel, 16); > -- > 2.17.1 > > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
-- Thanks, Mikita Lipski Software Engineer 2, AMD mikita.lipski@amd.com
-- Thanks, Mikita Lipski Software Engineer 2, AMD mikita.lipski@amd.com
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Cornij, Nikola -
Mikita Lipski -
mikita.lipski＠amd.com -
Ville Syrjälä