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:3.494 / U:0.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site