Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Add Qualcomm JPEG V4L2 encoder for SM8250

[Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org>]

On 7/6/26 16:37, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 06/07/2026 14:02, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why? The common power domain and interconnects have already been
>>>> described as resources of the parent CAMSS device, there is no need
>>>> to duplicate descriptions in every child device tree node of CAMSS.
>>>
>>> CSID, IFE etc are not parents of the JPEG encoder.
>>>
>>> The idea is to make all of these peers, eventually. Not particular block
>>> owns the TITAN_TOP_GDSC - the entire CAMSS block is a collapsible block.
>>>
>>
>> The statement provides the same information as before, e.g. it's found
>> here:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/fbc018f5-
>> c025-4747-85f2-53b45b0f0496@nxsw.ie/
>>
>>       There's no functional linkage between CAMSS/IFE and JPEG - they are
>>       peers within the CAMSS power-island.
>>
>> Thus "the CAMSS power-island" exists, and it got its hardware description
>> as the CAMSS top device tree node, and TITAN_TOP_GDSC power domain is
>> a natural resource of all devices on "CAMSS power-island",
> 
> Vlad honestly, TITAN_TOP_GDSC is provided to the CAMSS island - all of
> the nodes within it depend on that and it is _external_ to the block.

So? There is no tension with my point of view.

> There is a CSID MUX on some SOC other than that I'll restate it again,
> I'm not sure why you won't accept it.
> 
> There is no dependency between JPEG and IFE, one is _not_ subordinate to
> the other and trying to find ways to invalidate that statement runs
> counter to the facts.
> 
> CAMCC provides TITAN_TOP_GDSC external to the CAMSS block, that GDSC
> effectively _is_ the power island.
> 
> This debate is going nowhere. Check the downstream you don't need the
> docs titan_top_gdsc is provided by CAMCC.
> 

There is no debate, since my arguments are not debated so far... Why?

And at the same time you didn't provide any support to have N identical
spread hardware property descriptions instead of the single one.

What is a good enough reason to prefer complexity over simplicity?

-- 
Best wishes,
Vladimir