On Mon, Mar 02, 2026 at 01:45:39PM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 2/27/26 7:36 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > Once Konrad asked, what is the use for VBIF_NRT. Answering to his > > question revealed that it's not actually used by the DPU driver. > > > > There are two VBIF interfaces two memory, VBIF_RT and VBIF_NRT with > > VBIF_NRT being used only for the offscreen rotator, a separate block > > performing writeback operation with the optional 90 degree rotation. > > This block will require a separate isntance of the DPU driver, and it is > > not supported at this point. > > > > The only exception to that rule is MSM8996, where VBIF_NRT has also been > > used for outputting all writeback data. The DPU driver don't support WB > > on that platform and most likely will not in the close feature. > > > > The missing features don't match the extra complexity required to > > support two VBIF interfaces, so drop the second one and all the options > > to support it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <[email protected]> > > --- > > This leaves a trailing 'bool is_rt' in struct dpu_vbif_set_qos_params. > > I'm not sure whether/if we're going to use that specific set of functions > with rotator support, but we should probably retain (and at some point > recheck) the dpu_vbif_cfg->qos_nrt_tbl data that the catalog houses
is_rt and qos_nrt_tbl are related to the WB support, so they can't go away. > > Konrad -- With best wishes Dmitry
