lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [Freedreno] [PATCH 2/3] drm/msm/dpu1: Add MSM8998 to hw catalog
    On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 2:26 AM Dmitry Baryshkov
    <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> wrote:
    >
    > Hi,
    >
    > On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Jeffrey Hugo <jeffrey.l.hugo@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 12:11 PM AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
    > > <angelogioacchino.delregno@somainline.org> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Bringup functionality for MSM8998 in the DPU, driver which is mostly
    > > > the same as SDM845 (just a few variations).
    > > >
    > > > Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@somainline.org>
    > >
    > > I don't seem to see a cover letter for this series.
    > >
    > > Eh, there are a fair number of differences between the MDSS versions
    > > for 8998 and 845.
    > >
    > > Probably a bigger question, why extend the DPU driver for 8998, when
    > > the MDP5 driver already supports it[1]? The MDP/DPU split is pretty
    > > dumb, but I don't see a valid reason for both drivers supporting the
    > > same target/display revision. IMO, if you want this support in DPU,
    > > remove it from MDP5.
    > >
    > > [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?h=v5.14&id=d6c7b2284b14c66a268a448a7a8d54f585d38785
    >
    > I don't think that we should enforce such requirements. Having support
    > both in MDP5 and DPU would allow one to compare those two drivers,
    > performance, features, etc.
    > It might be that all MDP5-supported hardware would be also supported
    > by DPU, thus allowing us to remove the former driver. But until that
    > time I'd suggest leaving support in place.

    Well, then you have a host of problems to solve.

    Lets ignore the code duplication for a minute and assume we've gone
    with this grand experiment. Two drivers enter, one leaves the victor.

    How are the clients supposed to pick which driver to use in the mean
    time? We already have one DT binding for 8998 (which the MDP5 driver
    services). This series proposes a second. If we go forward with what
    you propose, we'll have two bindings for the same hardware, which IMO
    doesn't make sense in the context of DT, and the reason for that is to
    select which driver is "better". Driver selection is not supposed to
    be tied to DT like this.

    So, some boards think MDP5 is better, and some boards think DPU is
    better. At some point, we decide one of the drivers is the clear
    winner (lets assume DPU). Then what happens to the existing DTs that
    were using the MDP5 description? Are they really compatible with DPU?

    From a DT perspective, there should be one description, but then how
    do you pick which driver to load? Both can't bind on the single
    description, and while you could argue that the users should build one
    driver or the other, but not both (thus picking which one at build
    time), that doesn't work for distros that want to build both drivers
    so that they can support all platforms with a single build (per arch).

    From where I sit, your position starts with a good idea, but isn't
    fully thought out and leads to problems.

    If there is some reason why DPU is better for 8998, please enumerate
    it. Does DPU support some config that MDP5 doesn't, which is valuable
    to you? I'm ok with ripping out the MDP5 support, the reason I didn't
    go with DPU was that the DPU driver was clearly written only for 845
    at the time, and needed significant rework to "downgrade" to an
    earlier hardware. However, the "reason" DPU exists separate from MDP5
    is the claim that the MDP hardware underwent a significant
    rearchitecture, and thus it was too cumbersome to extend MDP5. While
    I disagree with the premise, that "rearch" started with 8998.

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2021-09-08 16:23    [W:3.305 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site