Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Introduce "non-pixel" sub node within iris video node

Konrad Dybcio
2025-07-03T12:38:38Z

On 03-Jul-25 09:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 03/07/2025 00:26, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 01:06:17PM +0100, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>> On 02/07/2025 13:01, Vikash Garodia wrote:
>>>>> Anyway, in other messages I explained what is missing. You are changing
>>>>> existing hardware and you clearly must explain how existing hardware is
>>>>> affected, how can we reproduce it, how users are affected.
>>>> Exactly all of these i have explained in the commit message. The limitation with
>>>> existing hardware binding usage and how my new approach mitigates that limition.
>>>>
>>>> Coming to usecase, i made a generic comment saying usecases which needs higher
>>>> IOVA, i can add the explicit detail about usecase like 8k or higher
>>>> concurrencies like 32 or higher concurrent sessions.
>>>
>>> Why not make this change for a new SoC, instead of an existing ?
>>
>> Because we definitely want to improve support for older SoCs too.
>
> Older SoCs came with completely new drivers and bindings, instead of
> evolving existing Venus, so they for sure came with correct code and
> correct binding.

No, this is a terrible assumption to make, and we've been
through this time and time again - a huge portion of the code
submitted in the early days of linux-arm-msm did the bare minimum
to present a feature, without giving much thought to the sanity of
hw description, be it on a block or platform level.

That's why we're still adding clocks to mdss, regulators to camera
etc. etc. to this day. And it's only going to get worse when there
will be a need or will to add S2disk support with register
save/restore..

Konrad

>
> That was one of the reasons why duplicating venus was accepted: to get
> things right, so obviously your argument cannot be true, right?
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>