[meta-freescale] [PATCH 30/32] imx-base.inc: Add imxdpu and imxdpublit to MACHINEOVERRIDES_EXTENDER

[Tom Hochstein]

Hi Gary,

I think what you say makes a lot of sense. There's little value to these overrides, so I'll remove them from the patchset.

Tom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Bisson [mailto:gary.bisson at boundarydevices.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 9:13 AM
> To: Tom Hochstein <tom.hochstein at nxp.com>
> Cc: Otavio Salvador <otavio at ossystems.com.br>; meta-freescale Mailing List
> <meta-freescale at yoctoproject.org>
> Subject: Re: [meta-freescale] [PATCH 30/32] imx-base.inc: Add imxdpu and
> imxdpublit to MACHINEOVERRIDES_EXTENDER
> 
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 02:00:29PM +0000, Tom Hochstein wrote:
> > After thinking on this some more, let me start over.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: meta-freescale-bounces at yoctoproject.org
> > > [mailto:meta-freescale- bounces at yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Gary
> > > Bisson
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 3:20 AM
> > > To: Otavio Salvador <otavio at ossystems.com.br>
> > > Cc: meta-freescale Mailing List <meta-freescale at yoctoproject.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [meta-freescale] [PATCH 30/32] imx-base.inc: Add imxdpu
> > > and imxdpublit to MACHINEOVERRIDES_EXTENDER
> > >
> > > Hi Otavio, Tom,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 04:30:30PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > > From: Tom Hochstein <tom.hochstein at nxp.com>
> > > >
> > > > - imx-gpu-g2d requires DPU-blit support
> > >
> > > Can you elaborate on that? What has changed in the g2d package so
> > > that it now depends on DPU-blit?
> >
> > Nothing has changed, this just makes an existing requirement explicit. i.MX
> 6 and 7 with 2D GPU do in fact have a separate DPU blitting engine, different
> from the DPU used for i.MX 8.
> 
> What does "DPU" mean to you? I think what you mean is "i.MX6 and 7 can do
> 2D blit operations with their 2D GPU".
> 
> Using the term DPU doesn't make sense to me, please elaborate.
> 
> My definition of DPU is "Display Processing Unit" as defined in i.MX8QM
> docs, therefore using the same term for CPU that don't have that IP is
> confusing, isn't it?
> 
> > > > - imx-dpu-g2d requires DPU support
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Tom Hochstein <tom.hochstein at nxp.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador <otavio at ossystems.com.br>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > >  conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc                  | 14 +++++++-------
> > > >  recipes-graphics/imx-dpu-g2d/imx-dpu-g2d_1.4.2.bb  |  4 +++-
> > > >  .../imx-gpu-g2d/imx-gpu-g2d_6.2.4.p1.2.bb          |  4 +++-
> > > >  3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc
> > > > b/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc
> > > > index 346d1c77..6ba5014d 100644
> > > > --- a/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc
> > > > +++ b/conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc
> > > > @@ -59,17 +59,17 @@ DEFAULTTUNE_vf ?= "cortexa5thf-neon"
> > > >  INHERIT += "machine-overrides-extender"
> > > >
> > > >  MACHINEOVERRIDES_EXTENDER_mx25   = "use-mainline-bsp"
> > > > -MACHINEOVERRIDES_EXTENDER_mx6q   =
> > > "imxipu:imxvpu:imxgpu2d:imxgpu3d"
> > > > -MACHINEOVERRIDES_EXTENDER_mx6dl  =
> > > "imxpxp:imxipu:imxvpu:imxgpu2d:imxgpu3d:imxepdc"
> > > > -MACHINEOVERRIDES_EXTENDER_mx6sx  =
> "imxpxp:imxgpu2d:imxgpu3d"
> > > > -MACHINEOVERRIDES_EXTENDER_mx6sl  =
> "imxpxp:imxgpu2d:imxepdc"
> > > > +MACHINEOVERRIDES_EXTENDER_mx6q   =
> > > "imxipu:imxvpu:imxgpu2d:imxdpublit:imxgpu3d"
> > > > +MACHINEOVERRIDES_EXTENDER_mx6dl  =
> > > "imxpxp:imxipu:imxvpu:imxgpu2d:imxdpublit:imxgpu3d:imxepdc"
> > > > +MACHINEOVERRIDES_EXTENDER_mx6sx  =
> > > "imxpxp:imxgpu2d:imxdpublit:imxgpu3d"
> > > > +MACHINEOVERRIDES_EXTENDER_mx6sl  =
> > > "imxpxp:imxgpu2d:imxdpublit:imxepdc"
> > >
> > > ?? I don't understand that naming at all. Shouldn't imxdpublit be
> > > necessary on HW that has a DPU (ie none of the above)?
> > >
> > > >  MACHINEOVERRIDES_EXTENDER_mx6sll = "imxpxp:imxepdc"
> > > >  MACHINEOVERRIDES_EXTENDER_mx6ul  = "imxpxp"
> > > >  MACHINEOVERRIDES_EXTENDER_mx6ull = "imxpxp:imxepdc"
> > > >  MACHINEOVERRIDES_EXTENDER_mx7d   = "imxpxp:imxepdc"
> > > > -MACHINEOVERRIDES_EXTENDER_mx7ulp =
> "imxpxp:imxgpu2d:imxgpu3d"
> > > > -MACHINEOVERRIDES_EXTENDER_mx8mq  = "imxvpu:imxgpu3d"
> > > > -MACHINEOVERRIDES_EXTENDER_mx8mm  =
> > > "imxvpu:imxgpu2d:imxgpu3d"
> > > > +MACHINEOVERRIDES_EXTENDER_mx7ulp =
> > > "imxpxp:imxgpu2d:imxdpublit:imxgpu3d"
> > > > +MACHINEOVERRIDES_EXTENDER_mx8mq  =
> "imxvpu:imxdpu:imxgpu3d"
> > >
> > > This is wrong, mx8mq doesn't have a DPU.
> >
> > You are correct about that, my mistake.
> >
> > So at this point just need to fix this patch. Note, that I need to submit an
> update for imx-gpu-sdk that also depends on imxdpublit.
> 
> Sorry but that still doesn't tell me why we're not using imxgpu2d as before?
> Why creating a "2dblit" feature, it was known in the first place that imxgpu2d
> is capable of 2dblit. Actually let's generalize it and say that "libg2d" (whether
> it is gpu or dpu) is capable of blitting.
> 
> The only issue I see is that in the case of imx8mm, both gpu-g2d and dpu-g2d
> can be built, but that should be easily selectable via a preferred provider for
> lig2d no? Also I find it more flexible to leave it to the user to select which 2D
> blitting engine he wants to use instead of forcing one over the other.
> 
> Regards,
> Gary