[PATCH v2 4/5] drm/rockchip: vop: add a series of vop support
Sean Paul
seanpaul at chromium.org
Thu Jul 13 13:28:43 PDT 2017
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Mark yao <mark.yao at rock-chips.com> wrote:
> On 2017年07月13日 02:33, Sean Paul wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:03:54AM +0800, Mark Yao wrote:
>
> Vop Full framework now has following vops:
> IP version chipname
> 3.1 rk3288
> 3.2 rk3368
> 3.4 rk3366
> 3.5 rk3399 big
> 3.6 rk3399 lit
>
> Below you say little vop is major == 2, but you have major == 3 here.
>
>
> "RK3399 lit" is a full design vop framework, just cut down some feature from
> rk3399 big design, so it's IP major is 3.
>
> the little vop is rk3066, rk3188, rk3036, etc.
>
Hi Mark,
Please avoid using HTML mail on the mailing list, it makes mutt angry
and gmail doesn't quote the thread properly.
>
>
> 3.7 rk3228
> 3.8 rk3328
>
> The above IP version is from H/W define, some of vop support get
> the IP version from VERSION_INFO register, some are not.
> hardcode the IP version for each vop to identify them.
>
> major version: used for IP structure, Vop full framework is 3,
> vop little framework is 2.
> minor version: on same structure, newer design vop will bigger
> then old one.
>
> Changes in v2:
> - rename rk322x to rk3228(Heiko Stübner)
> - correct some vop registers define
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Yao <mark.yao at rock-chips.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_vop_reg.c | 202 +++++--
> drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_vop_reg.h | 905
> ++++++++++++++++++++++------
> 2 files changed, 863 insertions(+), 244 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_vop_reg.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_vop_reg.c
> index 159cedf..b33483c 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_vop_reg.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_vop_reg.c
> @@ -211,6 +211,7 @@
> .standby = VOP_REG(RK3288_SYS_CTRL, 0x1, 22),
> .gate_en = VOP_REG(RK3288_SYS_CTRL, 0x1, 23),
> .mmu_en = VOP_REG(RK3288_SYS_CTRL, 0x1, 20),
> + .dp_en = VOP_REG_VER(RK3399_SYS_CTRL, 0x1, 11, 3, 5, -1),
> .rgb_en = VOP_REG(RK3288_SYS_CTRL, 0x1, 12),
> .hdmi_en = VOP_REG(RK3288_SYS_CTRL, 0x1, 13),
> .edp_en = VOP_REG(RK3288_SYS_CTRL, 0x1, 14),
> @@ -220,14 +221,19 @@
> .data_blank = VOP_REG(RK3288_DSP_CTRL0, 0x1, 19),
> .dsp_blank = VOP_REG(RK3288_DSP_CTRL0, 0x3, 18),
> .out_mode = VOP_REG(RK3288_DSP_CTRL0, 0xf, 0),
> - .pin_pol = VOP_REG(RK3288_DSP_CTRL0, 0xf, 4),
> + .pin_pol = VOP_REG_VER(RK3288_DSP_CTRL0, 0xf, 4, 3, 0, 1),
> + .dp_pin_pol = VOP_REG_VER(RK3399_DSP_CTRL1, 0xf, 16, 3, 5, -1),
> + .rgb_pin_pol = VOP_REG_VER(RK3368_DSP_CTRL1, 0xf, 16, 3, 2, -1),
> + .hdmi_pin_pol = VOP_REG_VER(RK3368_DSP_CTRL1, 0xf, 20, 3, 2, -1),
> + .edp_pin_pol = VOP_REG_VER(RK3368_DSP_CTRL1, 0xf, 24, 3, 2, -1),
> + .mipi_pin_pol = VOP_REG_VER(RK3368_DSP_CTRL1, 0xf, 28, 3, 2, -1),
> .htotal_pw = VOP_REG(RK3288_DSP_HTOTAL_HS_END, 0x1fff1fff, 0),
> .hact_st_end = VOP_REG(RK3288_DSP_HACT_ST_END, 0x1fff1fff, 0),
> .vtotal_pw = VOP_REG(RK3288_DSP_VTOTAL_VS_END, 0x1fff1fff, 0),
> .vact_st_end = VOP_REG(RK3288_DSP_VACT_ST_END, 0x1fff1fff, 0),
> .hpost_st_end = VOP_REG(RK3288_POST_DSP_HACT_INFO, 0x1fff1fff, 0),
> .vpost_st_end = VOP_REG(RK3288_POST_DSP_VACT_INFO, 0x1fff1fff, 0),
> - .global_regdone_en = VOP_REG(RK3288_SYS_CTRL, 0x1, 11),
> + .global_regdone_en = VOP_REG_VER(RK3288_SYS_CTRL, 0x1, 11, 3, 2, -1),
> .cfg_done = VOP_REG(RK3288_REG_CFG_DONE, 0x1, 0),
>
> I'm not really convinced VOP_REG_VER is a good idea. In the case of dp_en
> and
> pin_pol, the register is already used for different offsets, so presumably
> you're writing into don't care offsets?
>
>
> VOP_REG_VER control when the register works.
> for pin_pol, it only works on version(3.0 - 3.1), rk3288, it's dummy
> operate on other chips.
> for dp_en, it works on version (3.5 - bigger), rk3399 big, rk3399 lit,
> rk322x, etc.
> it's dummy operate on rk3288, rk3368.
>
> Using VOP_REG means the register works on all platform, Using VOP_REG_VER
> means only can use on some platform.
>
> So don't worry about writing wrong offsets, the register would be dummy on
> un-support platform.
Yeah, I understand what it does, and why you did it, I just think it's
overly complicated. I'd rather just see separate structures for each
unique piece of silicon vs having to parse version numbers to figure
out what's present on my chip.
>
> In the other cases, it just looks like a few new registers added for 3368
> and
> 3399. In this scenario, I don't think it's that bad to just have separate
> structs for each version that has distinct features. There's going to be
> more
> duplication, but then it's super easy to understand which platform has which
> registers.
>
>
> separate structs is TODO on my plan, separate with control, modesetting,
> etc.
> but many register has no a clean group define, and need rewrite write/read
> ops,
> need handle conflict for each platform.
I'm not worried about further splitting everything up. If you see a
pattern, go for it, otherwise just duplicate. It's not that big of a
deal IMO.
Sean
>
> And I think VOP_REG_VER mechanism can both works with separate structs.
>
>
> The whole versioning system is a little strange. For example, is each
> version
> guaranteed to have the registered defined for the previous version (ie: 3.6
> contains all registers defined for 3.5)?
>
>
> Mostly, new version will contains all register of previous, if some register
> only support on old version,
> example, pin_pol, only support on rk3288, use VOP_REG_VER limit it only can
> work on 3288.
> so it's no problem for this case.
>
> And If newer design vop actually have many register difference, no possible
> to using VOP_REG_VER,
> example rk3328, that means we need create a new register table for it.
>
>
> Sean
>
>
>
> Using VOP_REG_VER is to solved tiny difference registers on same vop design,
> then those
> vop can reuse register table. after that we can easy found what register
> difference
> for those same design vop from register table.
>
> H/W design always do that on design update: fix bugs and add new feature,
> With register table reusing, if we add a new feature for old design, all the
> newer design
> will get benefit.
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> 1.9.1
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
>
>
>
> --
> Ｍark Yao
More information about the Linux-rockchip
mailing list