Re: [PATCH 1/5] dt-bindings: media: venus: Add qcm2290 dt schema

Jorge Ramirez
2025-06-17T06:47:32Z

On 17/06/25 08:14:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 16/06/2025 18:59, Jorge Ramirez wrote:
> > On 16/06/25 18:23:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 16/06/2025 18:18, Jorge Ramirez wrote:
> >>> On 16/06/25 16:41:44, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>> On 16/06/2025 14:52, Jorge Ramirez wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> + The Venus AR50_LITE IP is a video encode and decode accelerator present
> >>>>>>> + on Qualcomm platforms
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +allOf:
> >>>>>>> + - $ref: qcom,venus-common.yaml#
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +properties:
> >>>>>>> + compatible:
> >>>>>>> + const: qcom,qcm2290-venus
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + power-domains:
> >>>>>>> + minItems: 2
> >>>>>>> + maxItems: 3
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + power-domain-names:
> >>>>>>> + minItems: 2
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why is this flexible? Either you have two or three. Not mixed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> please check 5b380f242f360256c96e96adabeb7ce9ec784306
> >>>>
> >>>> This does not explain why this is optional HERE. You cannot use for a
> >>>> new platform an argument that some existing platform was changed in
> >>>> ABI-preserving way.
> >>>
> >>> thanks for quick the follow up.
> >>>
> >>> but bear with me please because I dont follow - why can the same logic
> >>> be used - it being applicable - and therefore result in a definition
> >>> similar to those other platforms?
> >>
> >> Because this platform either has 2 or 3, not both. Unless that's not
> >> true, but then please share some arguments.
> >
> > as with every other venus schema with more than 1 power domain, the
> > argument is the same one that I have shared with you a couple of
> > messages back (DVFS).
> >
> > verbatim:
> > Venus needs to vote for the performance state of a power domain (cx)
> > to be able to support DVFS. This 'cx' power domain is controlled by
> > rpm and is a common power domain (scalable) not specific to
> > venus alone. This is optional in the sense that, leaving this power
> > domain out does not really impact the functionality but just makes
> > the platform a little less power efficient.
>
> That's not definition of optional. The domain is needed for this device,
> the device is one way or another having its rails routed to that domain.
> It is not optional.
>
> >
> > Seeing all these venus schemas follow the same pattern, it seems to me
> > that this is the correct way of implementing the above.
>
> No for the reason I mentioned earlier.

So just to close this story up, were these two commits wrongly
reviewed and signed off then ? Please do notice they were also - just
like this one - new additions and not a change in an ABI preserving way
as you characterize them.

e48b839b6699c2268e545360e06962bb76ff5b8d
8d3a1cb32124eaeb3f2efe4889de214d3b658d8d

>
> >
> > You seem to disagree. please could you explain?
>
> I already explained. You add new device, so argument to preserve ABI,
> which was accepted THAT TIME, is not valid. You do not have ABI.

as per the two commits above, this is not an argument to 'presereve' an ABI -
this looks to me like an implementation.

anyhow, if everyone agrees this is the only way to move this forward
will do just fix this to three then.

please let me know.

>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof