[PATCH v2 05/11] drm/rockchip: vop2: Introduce vop hardware version

[Diederik de Haas]

On Mon Sep 9, 2024 at 11:13 AM CEST, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 04:09:58PM +0800, Andy Yan wrote:
> >  At 2024-09-05 15:10:56, "Sascha Hauer" <s.hauer at pengutronix.de> wrote:
> >  >On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 08:02:32PM +0800, Andy Yan wrote:
> >  >> From: Andy Yan <andy.yan at rock-chips.com>
> >  >>
> >  >> There is a version number hardcoded in the VOP VERSION_INFO
> >  >> register, and the version number increments sequentially based
> >  >> on the production order of the SOC.
> >  >>
> >  >> So using this version number to distinguish different VOP features
> >  >> will simplify the code.
> >  >>
> >  >> Signed-off-by: Andy Yan <andy.yan at rock-chips.com>
> >  >>
> >  >> ---
> >  >>
> >  >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.h
> >  >> index 9b269f6e576e..871d9bcd1d80 100644
> >  >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.h
> >  >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.h
> >  >> @@ -13,6 +13,15 @@
> >  >>  #include "rockchip_drm_drv.h"
> >  >>  #include "rockchip_drm_vop.h"
> >  >>
> >  >> +#define VOP2_VERSION(major, minor, build)     ((major) << 24 | (minor) << 16 | (build))
> >  >> +
> >  >> +/* The new SOC VOP version is bigger than the old */
> >  >> +#define VOP_VERSION_RK3568    VOP2_VERSION(0x40, 0x15, 0x8023)
> >  >> +#define VOP_VERSION_RK3588    VOP2_VERSION(0x40, 0x17, 0x6786)
> >  >> +#define VOP_VERSION_RK3528    VOP2_VERSION(0x50, 0x17, 0x1263)
> >  >> +#define VOP_VERSION_RK3562    VOP2_VERSION(0x50, 0x17, 0x4350)
> >  >> +#define VOP_VERSION_RK3576    VOP2_VERSION(0x50, 0x19, 0x9765)
> >  >
> >  >What about the RK3566? Does it have the same version code as the RK3568?
> >  >
> >  >This new version field replaces the soc_id mechanism we had before to
> >  >99%. You keep the soc_id around just for distinguishing between RK3566
> >  >and RK3568. It would be nice to fully replace it.
> >  >
> >  >I see that the VOP_VERSION_RK* numbers are the same as found in the
> >  >VOP2_SYS_VERSION_INF registers. On the other hand you never read the
> >  >value from the register which make the VOP_VERSION_RK* just arbitrary
> >  >numbers. Wouldn't it be possible to make something up for RK3566, like
> >  >VOP2_VERSION(0x40, 0x15, 0x8022) to get rid of the soc_id thingy?
> >  Yes，RK3566 and RK3568 share the same VOP IP block， so the version code at VERSION_REGISTER is
> >  the same, the difference between rk3568 and rk33566 are introduced at soc Integration。
> >  So i would still like to keep the soc_id to  handle situation like this。As we always have such  cause， one
> >  same IP block， but there are some subtle differences in features across different SOCs.
>
> Fine with me. You could leave a comment in the code or commit
> message that explains why we need both.

Also (or especially?) add that to the commit message of patch 6 of this
series. Patch 6's commit message talks about RK3576 while it changes
code related to RK3566 and I (too?) thought that not using VOP_VERSION
was an oversight, while it turns out to be deliberate.

Cheers,
  Diederik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-rockchip/attachments/20240909/4405e8a9/attachment.sig>