Hi Sascha， At 2024-09-09 17:13:55, "Sascha Hauer" <s.ha...@pengutronix.de> wrote: >On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 04:09:58PM +0800, Andy Yan wrote: >> Hi Sascha, >> >> At 2024-09-05 15:10:56, "Sascha Hauer" <s.ha...@pengutronix.de> wrote: >> >Hi Andy, >> > >> >On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 08:02:32PM +0800, Andy Yan wrote: >> >> From: Andy Yan <andy....@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....@rock-chips.com> >> >> >> >> --- >> >> >> >> Changes in v2: >> >> - Introduce vop hardware version >> >> >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.c | 7 ++++--- >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_drm_vop2.h | 11 +++++++++++ >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/rockchip/rockchip_vop2_reg.c | 3 +++ >> >> 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> >> >> 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. Ok， will add in V3.> >> I have considered reading the version register directly, but I haven't >> found a suitable method yet. > >You could check the expected version from the driver data against >the register value, but that would only be an additional sanity check. >Not sure if it's worth it. I think we can add a check like that to make sure the version code matchs the real register value，rather than being an arbitrarily created value. >Sascha > >-- >Pengutronix e.K. | | >Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | >31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | >Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | > >_______________________________________________ >Linux-rockchip mailing list >linux-rockc...@lists.infradead.org >http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
