Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] media: qcom: iris: split firmware_data from raw platform data

[Dikshita Agarwal <dikshita.agarwal@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 3/13/2026 2:55 PM, Dikshita Agarwal wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/13/2026 1:37 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 01:19:21PM +0530, Dikshita Agarwal wrote:
>>
>> I'm sorry, I've refreshed the series before receiving this email. I will
>> send new iteration after settling the discussion here.
>>
>>> On 3/13/2026 9:00 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>> Having firmware-related fields in platform data results in the tying
>>>> platform data to the HFI firmware data rather than the actual hardware.
>>>> For example, SM8450 uses Gen2 firmware, so currently its platform data
>>>> should be placed next to the other gen2 platforms, although it has the
>>>> VPU2.0 core, similar to the one found on SM8250 and SC7280 and so the
>>>> hardware-specific platform data is also close to those devices.
>>>>
>>>> Split firmware data to a separate struct, separating hardware-related
>>>> data from the firmware interfaces.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_buffer.c     |  84 +++----
>>>>  drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_core.h       |   1 +
>>>>  drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_ctrls.c      |   8 +-
>>>>  .../platform/qcom/iris/iris_hfi_gen1_command.c     |  10 +-
>>>>  .../platform/qcom/iris/iris_hfi_gen2_command.c     |  66 ++---
>>>>  .../platform/qcom/iris/iris_platform_common.h      |  79 +++---
>>>>  .../media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_platform_gen1.c  |  68 +++---
>>>>  .../media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_platform_gen2.c  | 268 +++++++--------------
>>>>  drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_probe.c      |   3 +-
>>>>  drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_vidc.c       |  10 +-
>>>>  10 files changed, 246 insertions(+), 351 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_platform_common.h b/drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_platform_common.h
>>>> index d1daef2d874b..1a870fec4f31 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_platform_common.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_platform_common.h
>>>> @@ -201,45 +201,16 @@ enum platform_pm_domain_type {
>>>>  	IRIS_APV_HW_POWER_DOMAIN,
>>>>  };
>>>>  
>>>> -struct iris_platform_data {
>>>> +struct iris_firmware_data {
>>>>  	void (*init_hfi_ops)(struct iris_core *core);
>>>> +
>>>>  	u32 (*get_vpu_buffer_size)(struct iris_inst *inst, enum iris_buffer_type buffer_type);
>>>
>>> I still don't think it's right to keep vpu_buffer_size in firmware data as
>>> this would change mostly for every new VPU variant.
>>>
>>> The buffer sizing logic depends on VPU generation (vpu2, vpu3, vpu33,
>>> vpu35) / SoC constraints, not on whether the HFI is Gen1 vs Gen2.
>>
>> Okay, so how do we solve the SC7280 Gen1 vs Gen2 situation? I can keep
>> the function pointer in struct iris_platform_data for now, letting you
>> sort it out in your series.
> 
> Thanks! that is SC7280 problem, since code evolved due to additional
> features and other things, we might need to increase the vpu2 buffer size
> to accommodate both Ge1 and Gen2 requirement, I will check that and address
> in my series.
> 
>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_platform_gen2.c b/drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_platform_gen2.c
>>>> index 10a972f96cbe..a83f6910f8b7 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_platform_gen2.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_platform_gen2.c
>>>> @@ -906,41 +906,15 @@ static const u32 sm8550_enc_op_int_buf_tbl[] = {
>>>>  	BUF_SCRATCH_2,
>>>>  };
>>>>  
>>>> -const struct iris_platform_data sm8550_data = {
>>>> +const struct iris_firmware_data iris_hfi_gen2_data = {
>>>>  	.init_hfi_ops = iris_hfi_gen2_sys_ops_init,
>>>>  	.get_vpu_buffer_size = iris_vpu_buf_size,
>>>> -	.vpu_ops = &iris_vpu3_ops,
>>>> -	.icc_tbl = sm8550_icc_table,
>>>> -	.icc_tbl_size = ARRAY_SIZE(sm8550_icc_table),
>>>> -	.clk_rst_tbl = sm8550_clk_reset_table,
>>>> -	.clk_rst_tbl_size = ARRAY_SIZE(sm8550_clk_reset_table),
>>>> -	.bw_tbl_dec = sm8550_bw_table_dec,
>>>> -	.bw_tbl_dec_size = ARRAY_SIZE(sm8550_bw_table_dec),
>>>> -	.pmdomain_tbl = sm8550_pmdomain_table,
>>>> -	.pmdomain_tbl_size = ARRAY_SIZE(sm8550_pmdomain_table),
>>>> -	.opp_pd_tbl = sm8550_opp_pd_table,
>>>> -	.opp_pd_tbl_size = ARRAY_SIZE(sm8550_opp_pd_table),
>>>> -	.clk_tbl = sm8550_clk_table,
>>>> -	.clk_tbl_size = ARRAY_SIZE(sm8550_clk_table),
>>>> -	.opp_clk_tbl = sm8550_opp_clk_table,
>>>> -	/* Upper bound of DMA address range */
>>>> -	.dma_mask = 0xe0000000 - 1,
>>>> -	.fwname = "qcom/vpu/vpu30_p4.mbn",
>>>
>>> Should fw_name be in firmware_data? as this can be change based on HFI
>>> versions?
>>
>> That would fail because then each device will have to gain its own
>> struct iris_firmware_data.
>>
>> But... Maybe we can do something as simple as:
>>
>> struct iris_firmware_desc {
>> 	const char *fwname;
>> 	u32 (*get_vpu_buffer_size)(struct iris_inst *inst, enum iris_buffer_type buffer_type);
>> 	bool (*checK_fw_match)(u8 *buf, size_t size);
>> 	const struct iris_firmware_data *data;
>> };
>>
>> and then
>>
>> struct iris_platform_data {
>> 	struct iris_firmware_desc *gen1, *gen2;
>> 	// .. the rest as usual;
>> };
>>
>>
>> struct iris_core {
>> 	u32 (*get_vpu_buffer_size)(struct iris_inst *inst, enum iris_buffer_type buffer_type);
>> 	const struct iris_firmware_data *data;
>> 	// ... the rest as expected
>> };
>>
>> During first open the driver will try loading firmware from DT and
>> identifying it using the check_fw_match() callback. If DT doesn't have
>> firmware-name the driver will try loading gen2 and, if not found, gen1.
>> When firmware loading succeeds, it will set the pointer and the callback
>> in iris_core, settling the interface between the driver and the
>> firmware.
>>
>> WDYT?
> 
> This looks good to me. It handles the SC7280 Gen1 vs Gen2 buffer size
> differences as well.

Do you plan to implement above design in the next version of your series?

Thanks,
Dikshita
> 
> Thanks,
> Dikshita
> 
>>
>>>> -const struct iris_platform_data sm8650_data = {
>>>> +const struct iris_firmware_data iris_hfi_gen2_vpu33_data = {
>>>
>>> This proves my above point.
>>>
>>> iris_hfi_gen2_data and iris_hfi_gen2_vpu33_data become identical except for
>>> get_vpu_buffer_size, which forces us to create multiple “firmware_data”
>>> variants just to carry a hardware-specific difference.
>>>
>>> Also, it will scale poorly going forward. When we introduce vpu4 /
>>> vpu5–based platforms, we would need to add more copies of essentially the
>>> same HFI Gen2 firmware_data, differing only in the buffer sizing callback.
>>
>> Yes. I'm not sure, if there is any difference between params / caps as
>> implremented by the firmware for those generations.
>>