Re: [PATCH v8 5/7] media: venus: core: Add qcm2290 DT compatible and resource data

[Jorge Ramirez <jorge.ramirez@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 09/08/25 11:18:21, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2025 at 10:05:10PM +0530, Vikash Garodia wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 8/7/2025 7:22 PM, Jorge Ramirez wrote:
> > > On 07/08/25 16:36:41, Vikash Garodia wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> It was agreed that this complexity was not necessary and that we should
> > >>> just drop <6.0.55 firmware support (which would in any case only include
> > >>> video decode).
> > >>>
> > >>> And so on v8, I removed the above.
> > >>>
> > >>> Now I have v9 ready to post it, but Dmitry is asking why cant we have
> > >>> the v7 functionality so I am waiting for direction.
> > >>
> > >> the issue is in firmware for both encoder and decoder. Didn't like the idea of
> > >> driver carrying the hack for a firmware issue. Just because, for encoder, we are
> > >> unable to hack it in driver, we are ok to have it enabled in a newer version of
> > >> the firmware, we can follow the same for decoders as well.
> > > 
> > > if that is the only reason please do explain what do you mean by hack.
> > 
> > I meant that the EOS handling was not needed in driver after fixing it in
> > firmware, isn't it ? Was trying to avoid carrying this in driver.
> > 
> > I tend to agree with the comment made by Dmitry in another thread to have decode
> > enabled with existing firmware, no option but to support the *already* published
> > bins.
> > 
> > Having said that, these limitation of having a separate EOS dummy buffer is well
> > sorted out in gen2 HFI which have an explicit DRAIN cmd for it. Hope this
> > motivates you to migrate to iris soon for AR50LITE variants :)
> 
> Migrating to Iris won't bring gen2 HFI. Think about users which have
> OEM-fused hardware. For them it's not possible to switch firmware from
> gen1 to gen2. Thus, if the SoC has been released using gen1 HFI, we
> should think twice before upgrading it to gen2.
>

As I understand it now after the thread, any driver developer working on
new features should not be constrained by users with OEM-fused hardware.

Since only the OEM can provide signed firmware updates, it is their
responsibility—not ours—to figure out how to deliver those updates if
they want their users to benefit from new features (or new fixes).

The EU Cyber Resilience Act supports this view by placing the update
obligation on manufacturers (at least that is what I understand it, let
me know if you understand it differently)

Breaking backward compatibility is something we must avoid of
course. However, guaranteeing compatibility between old firmwares
(whether signed or not) and _new_ features is a separate matter...