Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] drm/msm/dsi: Add support for RGB101010 pixel format

[Alexander Koskovich <akoskovich@pm.me>]

On Thursday, March 19th, 2026 at 5:10 AM, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com> wrote:

> On 3/19/26 5:00 AM, Alexander Koskovich wrote:
> > Add video and command mode destination format mappings for RGB101010,
> > and extend the VID_CFG0 DST_FORMAT bitfield to 3 bits to accommodate
> > the new format value.
> >
> > Make sure this is guarded behind MSM_DSI_6G_VER >= V2.1.0 as anything
> > older does not support this.
> >
> > Required for 10 bit panels such as the BOE BF068MWM-TD0.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Koskovich <akoskovich@pm.me>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_cfg.c             | 8 ++++++++
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_cfg.h             | 1 +
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c            | 9 +++++++++
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/registers/display/dsi.xml | 5 ++++-
> >  4 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_cfg.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_cfg.c
> > index bd3c51c350e7..6a7ea2183a3b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_cfg.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_cfg.c
> > @@ -133,6 +133,7 @@ static const struct msm_dsi_config msm8998_dsi_cfg = {
> >  	.io_start = {
> >  		{ 0xc994000, 0xc996000 },
> >  	},
> > +	.has_rgb30 = true,
> 
> I wrote a patch to determine this at runtime, and only after I was done, I
> noticed that we can already achieve this:
> 
> bool msm_dsi_host_is_wide_bus_enabled(struct mipi_dsi_host *host)
> {
> 	struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host = to_msm_dsi_host(host);
> 
> 	return msm_host->dsc &&
> 		(msm_host->cfg_hnd->major == MSM_DSI_VER_MAJOR_6G &&
> 		 msm_host->cfg_hnd->minor >= MSM_DSI_6G_VER_MINOR_V2_5_0);
> }
> 
> let's perhaps extract this to a msm_dsi_host_version_is_gt(u32 major, u32 minor)
> or similar

That's what I was looking into initially, but V2_2_0 (0x20000000) is numerically less than V2_1_0 (0x20010000) so didn't think I could do that.

Do you know if msm8998 is correct? Downstream says it is 2.0 not 2.2. 

> 
> and your assumption about >=v2.1 is corroborated by a doc I have
> 
> Konrad
> 

Thanks,
Alex