On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 02:57:15PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > On Sun, 22 Aug 2021 at 13:50, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 4:12 PM Ezequiel Garcia > > <ezequiel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > +danvet > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 at 23:58, Yunfei Dong <yunfei.dong@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > This series adds support for multi hardware decode into mtk-vcodec, by first > > > > adding component framework to manage each hardware information: interrupt, > > > > clock, register bases and power. Secondly add core thread to deal with core > > > > hardware message, at the same time, add msg queue for different hardware > > > > share messages. Lastly, the architecture of different specs are not the same, > > > > using specs type to separate them. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think it's a good idea to introduce the component API in the > > > media subsystem. It doesn't seem to be maintained, IRC there's not even > > > a maintainer for it, and it has some issues that were never addressed. > > > > Defacto dri-devel folks are maintainer component.c, but also I'm not > > aware of anything missing there? > > > > A while ago, I tried to fix a crash in the Rockchip DRM driver > (I was then told there can be similar issues on the IMX driver too, > but I forgot the details of that). > > I sent a patchset trying to address it and got total silence back. > Although you could argue the issue is in how drivers use the component > API, AFAICR the abuse is spreaded across a few drivers, so it felt > more reasonable to improve the component API itself, instead of changing > all the drivers. > > See below: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-rockchip/cover/20200120170602.3832-1-ezequiel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Patches get lost on the mailing list, and rockchip is one of the lesser maintained drivers. You need to ping this stuff. For bridge/panel I still think we should work towards removing component.c use from them. > > There has been discussions that in various drm subsystems like > > drm_bridge or drm_panel a few things are missing, which prevent > > drivers from moving _away_ from component.c to the more specific > > solutions for panel/bridges. But nothing that's preventing them from > > using component.c itself. > > > > I'm happy to merge a MAINTAINERS patch to clarify the situation if > > that's needed. > > Indeed, that would be good. Ok I'm going to type something. -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
