Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Aug 2023 13:57:44 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/6] media: dt-bindings: Document SC8280XP/SM8350 Venus | From | Bryan O'Donoghue <> |
| |
On 09/08/2023 13:15, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >> Hmm. >> >> Well from earlier in the thread the question "why do we have these compat strings" is because we can have any combination of encoder/decoder assigned. >> >> If there's a cogent argument_still_ to be made to transition to some new way of assignment then fine so long as we don't break that basic flexibility. >> >> Though my own €0.02 is that a module parameter is more of a PITA than a compat string. >> >> OTOH I could make the argument, that the high probability is most people - probably all, just instantiate a single encoder and decoder and aren't aware of or using the inbuilt flexibility. >> >> @stan probably has the right idea what to do. > Actually.. > > Has anybody tested this, ever, with the mainline driver?
I assume Stan has.
> Do we have anyone using this? Can't say.
> Is anybody willing to maintain that, test for regressions and > fix them in a reasonable amount of time? > > > If we don't have at least 2x "yes" here, I don't think it makes sense > to worry about it..
Hmm.
We decide if we are encoding or decoding when we init a session and the blocks are symmetrical. The hw blocks themselves are not bound to a particular encode/decode mode.
Having two parallel encoders or decoders is exactly the same effort as having a parallel encoder/decoder.
We don't test parallel encoding/decoding but we should. I'd not be surprised to find there are bugs but, that's not a reason to exclude rather to find and fix bugs.
--- bod
| |