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

Vikash Garodia
2025-07-02T12:57:44Z

On 7/2/2025 5:35 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 02/07/2025 14:01, Vikash Garodia wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/2/2025 5:22 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 02/07/2025 13:37, Vikash Garodia wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 7/2/2025 4:48 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 27/06/2025 17:48, Vikash Garodia wrote:
>>>>>> This series introduces a sub node "non-pixel" within iris video node.
>>>>>> Video driver registers this sub node as a platform device and configure
>>>>>> it for DMA operations. All non pixel buffers, i.e bitstream, HFI queues
>>>>>> and internal buffers related to bitstream processing, would be managed
>>>>>> by this non_pixel device.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Purpose to add this sub-node:
>>>>>> Iris device limits the IOVA to an addressable range of 4GiB, and even
>>>>>> within that range, some of the space is used by IO registers, thereby
>>>>>> limiting the available IOVA to even lesser. For certain video usecase,
>>>>>> this limited range in not sufficient enough, hence it brings the need to
>>>>>> extend the possibility of higher IOVA range.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Video hardware is designed to emit different stream-ID for pixel and
>>>>>> non-pixel buffers, thereby introduce a non-pixel sub node to handle
>>>>>> non-pixel stream-ID into a separate platform device.
>>>>>> With this, both iris and non-pixel device can have IOVA range of
>>>>>> approximately 0-4GiB individually for each device, thereby doubling the
>>>>>> range of addressable IOVA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tested on SM8550 and SA8775p hardwares.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vikash Garodia <quic_vgarodia@quicinc.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Changes in v3:
>>>>>> - Add info about change in iommus binding (Thanks Krzysztof)
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing improved in commit msg. You are changing existing device and the
>>>>> reason for that change is not communicated at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was big feedback from qualcomm saying that some commit in the past
>>>>> received review, so future commits can repeat the same stuff. If qcom
>>>>> approaches that way, sorry, no you need to come with proper commit
>>>>> description.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please align internally how to solve it, because my response that past
>>>>> imperfect review is not justification for whatever future issues was not
>>>>> enough.
>>>> Sure, lets take this as an example and you can suggest to provide a better
>>>> commit message for this case, it would help me to compare where is the gap. I
>>>> have tried my best to capture and explain the limitations and how the changes
>>>> address those limitations. If that is not sufficient, we might have the perfect
>>>> message from you and compare to find the gaps and improve, I am sorry, but thats
>>>
>>> It is not question to me: I did not want imperfectness. Qualcomm
>>> engineer used issues in existing commits or imperfect commit in
>>> discussion, so that's my solution. I don't need that perfect commit, but
>>> it seems if I agree to that, then I will have to defend it later. Well,
>>> no, I don't want it.
>>>
>>>> how i feel at the moment.
>>> Sure, I feel confused now as well.
>>>
>>> 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
>
> Well, no.
>
> I did not see reproduce steps, users affected, which boards, nothing
> like that.
>
> Your commit says "certain video usecases"... how is this specific?
>
> You are deflecting now questions. Point me then part of commit msg which
> answers to:
>
> "explain how existing hardware is affected"
>
> "how can we reproduce it"
>
> "how users are affected."
Ack, will add further specifics covering above aspects.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof