lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v9 03/13] media: hantro: Use syscon instead of 'ctrl' register
From
Date

Le 20/04/2021 à 11:16, Hans Verkuil a écrit :
> On 20/04/2021 11:10, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
>> Le 16/04/2021 à 17:14, Lucas Stach a écrit :
>>> Am Freitag, dem 16.04.2021 um 15:08 +0200 schrieb Benjamin Gaignard:
>>>> Le 16/04/2021 à 12:54, Lucas Stach a écrit :
>>>>> Am Mittwoch, dem 07.04.2021 um 09:35 +0200 schrieb Benjamin Gaignard:
>>>>>> In order to be able to share the control hardware block between
>>>>>> VPUs use a syscon instead a ioremap it in the driver.
>>>>>> To keep the compatibility with older DT if 'nxp,imx8mq-vpu-ctrl'
>>>>>> phandle is not found look at 'ctrl' reg-name.
>>>>>> With the method it becomes useless to provide a list of register
>>>>>> names so remove it.
>>>>> Sorry for putting a spoke in the wheel after many iterations of the
>>>>> series.
>>>>>
>>>>> We just discussed a way forward on how to handle the clocks and resets
>>>>> provided by the blkctl block on i.MX8MM and later and it seems there is
>>>>> a consensus on trying to provide virtual power domains from a blkctl
>>>>> driver, controlling clocks and resets for the devices in the power
>>>>> domain. I would like to avoid introducing yet another way of handling
>>>>> the blkctl and thus would like to align the i.MX8MQ VPU blkctl with
>>>>> what we are planning to do on the later chip generations.
>>>>>
>>>>> CC'ing Jacky Bai and Peng Fan from NXP, as they were going to give this
>>>>> virtual power domain thing a shot.
>>>> That could replace the 3 first patches and Dt patche of this series
>>>> but that will not impact the hevc part, so I wonder if pure hevc patches
>>>> could be merged anyway ?
>>>> They are reviewed and don't depend of how the ctrl block is managed.
>>> I'm not really in a position to give any informed opinion about that
>>> hvec patches, as I only skimmed them, but I don't see any reason to
>>> delay patches 04-11 from this series until the i.MX8M platform issues
>>> are sorted. AFAICS those things are totally orthogonal.
>> Hi Hans,
>> What do you think about this proposal to split this series ?
>> Get hevc part merged could allow me to continue to add features
>> like scaling lists, compressed reference buffers and 10-bit supports.
> Makes sense to me!

Great !
If the latest version match your expectations how would you like to processed ?
Can you merged patches 4 to 12 ? or should I resend them in a new shorted series ?

Regards,
Benjamin

>
> Regards,
>
> Hans
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-04-20 11:31    [W:0.070 / U:1.276 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site