[PATCH v5 5/8] media: mediatek: vcodec: fix vp9 4096x2176 fail for profile2

[Kyrie Wu (吴晗)]

On Thu, 2025-11-06 at 09:46 -0500, Nicolas Dufresne wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Le jeudi 06 novembre 2025 à 14:13 +0800, Kyrie Wu a écrit :
> > The dram addr of vp9 decoder tile number, which use dram mode
> > to set tile information, may reach to 36bits for 4096x2176.
> > It needs to get the highest 4bit of tile buffer address to
> > set tile buffer address.
> 
> Please rework that commit message. Perhaps:
> 
> 	The DRAM address of the VP9 decoder mode info (MI) buffers may
> require
> 	as much as 36bits for 4096x2176 resolution. Fold the 4 most
> significant
> 	bits into the lower (padding) four bits of address.
> 
Dear Nicolas,

Thanks for your guidance, I will change the commit message in the next
version.

> > 
> > Fixes: 5d418351ca8f1 ("media: mediatek: vcodec: support stateless
> > VP9 decoding")
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kyrie Wu <kyrie.wu at mediatek.com>
> > Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <
> > angelogioacchino.delregno at collabora.com>
> > ---
> >  .../mediatek/vcodec/decoder/vdec/vdec_vp9_req_lat_if.c       | 5
> > ++++-
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git
> > a/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/decoder/vdec/vdec_vp9_req_
> > lat_if.c
> > b/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/decoder/vdec/vdec_vp9_req_
> > lat_if.c
> > index d966914db4b9..91c563c049bd 100644
> > ---
> > a/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/decoder/vdec/vdec_vp9_req_
> > lat_if.c
> > +++
> > b/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/decoder/vdec/vdec_vp9_req_
> > lat_if.c
> > @@ -1156,7 +1156,10 @@ static int
> > vdec_vp9_slice_setup_tile_buffer:q(struct vdec_vp9_slice_instance
> > *inst
> >  			tiles->size[i][j] = size;
> >  			if (tiles->mi_rows[i]) {
> >  				*tb++ = (size << 3) + ((offset << 3) &
> > 0x7f);
> > -				*tb++ = pa & ~0xf;
> > +				*tb = pa & ~0xf;
> > +				if
> > (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT))
> > +					*tb |= (pa >> 32) & 0xf;
> > +				tb++;
> 
> You are following the style here, so no complaints, though the macros
> GENMASK(3, 0) instead of 0xf and GENMASK(31, 4) instead of ~0xf is
> another way
> to write this code.
Thanks. I will use GENMASK(3, 0)/GENMASK(31, 4) to replace 0xf/~0xf in
the next version.

> 
> Since this is not always obvious when the alignment padding of an
> address is
> being reused to extend the number of bits of an address, it would be
> nice if you
> add a comment explaining in words what his is doing.
> 
> cheers,
> Nicolas

OK, I will add comment before the line of if (tiles->mi_rows[i]) { ...

Regards,
Kyrie
> 
> >  				*tb++ = (pa << 3) & 0x7f;
> >  				mi_row = (tiles->mi_rows[i] - 1) &
> > 0x1ff;
> >  				mi_col = (tiles->mi_cols[j] - 1) &
> > 0x3f;