Hi ， At 2024-09-09 17:36:14, "Diederik de Haas" <didi.deb...@cknow.org> wrote: >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.ha...@pengutronix.de> wrote: >> > >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> >> > >> >> > >> --- >> > >> >> > >> 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. OK， will do in v3.> >Cheers, > Diederik
