On 20/04/2021 11:31, Benjamin Gaignard wrote: > > Le 20/04/2021 à 11:16, Hans Verkuil a écrit : >> On 20/04/2021 11:10, Benjamin Gaignard wrote: >>> Le 16/04/2021 à 17:14, Lucas Stach a écrit : >>>> Am Freitag, dem 16.04.2021 um 15:08 +0200 schrieb Benjamin Gaignard: >>>>> Le 16/04/2021 à 12:54, Lucas Stach a écrit : >>>>>> Am Mittwoch, dem 07.04.2021 um 09:35 +0200 schrieb Benjamin Gaignard: >>>>>>> In order to be able to share the control hardware block between >>>>>>> VPUs use a syscon instead a ioremap it in the driver. >>>>>>> To keep the compatibility with older DT if 'nxp,imx8mq-vpu-ctrl' >>>>>>> phandle is not found look at 'ctrl' reg-name. >>>>>>> With the method it becomes useless to provide a list of register >>>>>>> names so remove it. >>>>>> Sorry for putting a spoke in the wheel after many iterations of the >>>>>> series. >>>>>> >>>>>> We just discussed a way forward on how to handle the clocks and resets >>>>>> provided by the blkctl block on i.MX8MM and later and it seems there is >>>>>> a consensus on trying to provide virtual power domains from a blkctl >>>>>> driver, controlling clocks and resets for the devices in the power >>>>>> domain. I would like to avoid introducing yet another way of handling >>>>>> the blkctl and thus would like to align the i.MX8MQ VPU blkctl with >>>>>> what we are planning to do on the later chip generations. >>>>>> >>>>>> CC'ing Jacky Bai and Peng Fan from NXP, as they were going to give this >>>>>> virtual power domain thing a shot. >>>>> That could replace the 3 first patches and Dt patche of this series >>>>> but that will not impact the hevc part, so I wonder if pure hevc patches >>>>> could be merged anyway ? >>>>> They are reviewed and don't depend of how the ctrl block is managed. >>>> I'm not really in a position to give any informed opinion about that >>>> hvec patches, as I only skimmed them, but I don't see any reason to >>>> delay patches 04-11 from this series until the i.MX8M platform issues >>>> are sorted. AFAICS those things are totally orthogonal. >>> Hi Hans, >>> What do you think about this proposal to split this series ? >>> Get hevc part merged could allow me to continue to add features >>> like scaling lists, compressed reference buffers and 10-bit supports. >> Makes sense to me! > > Great ! > If the latest version match your expectations how would you like to processed ? > Can you merged patches 4 to 12 ? or should I resend them in a new shorted series ? A separate patch series would be easier for me. Regards, Hans > > Regards, > Benjamin > >> >> Regards, >> >> Hans >>
