Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Nov 2022 11:02:09 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 10/10] media: platform: mtk-mdp3: decompose hardware-related information in shared memory | From | AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <> |
| |
Il 03/11/22 07:48, Moudy Ho ha scritto: > The communication between the MDP3 kernel driver and SCP is to > pass a shared memory through the cooperation of "mtk-mdp3-vpu.c" and > remoteproc driver. > The data structure of this shared memory is defined in "mtk-img-ipi.h", > as shown below: > > vpu->work_addr -> +-----------------------------------------+ > | | > | To SCP : Input frame parameters | > | (struct img_ipi_frameparam) | > | | > vpu->pool -> +-----------------------------------------+ > | | > | From SCP : Output component config pool | > | (struct img_config) | > | | > | *struct img_confg 1 | > | | | > | | | > | v | > | *struct img_config N | > | (N = MDP_CONFIG_POOL_SIZE) | > +-----------------------------------------+ > > One output component configuration contains the components > currently used by the pipeline, and has the register settings > that each component needs to set. > > Since the quantity, type and function of components on each chip > will vary, the effect is that the size of the "struct img_config" > and its substructures will be different on each chip. > In addition, all chips will have to update their SCP firmware for > every change if the output component config structure is defined > and shared by a common header. > > Therefore, all functions that operate on "struct img_config" and > its substructures must be separated by chips and so are the > relevant definations. > > Signed-off-by: Moudy Ho <moudy.ho@mediatek.com>
Hi Moudy, thanks for this much needed rework of the IMG-IPI parameter passing architecture!
I can for sure go for a review of the code that you've currently pushed, but I would prefer that you also push support for MT8192 and/or MT8195 (requiring the different IPI structures and alignment), as previously discussed.
That will make us able to actually perform validation and will make us able to give you a better code review.
Since this series is definitely big (hence, a bit difficult to review, but that's fine, as there are no alternatives!), you can push support for the new chip(s) in a separate series, dependent on this one, so that we also won't block this rework for SoC-specific implementation code reviews.
Many thanks again!
P.S.: There's a typo in this commit message `*struct img_confg` :-)
Cheers, Angelo
| |