On 11/1/24 4:19 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> Hi Bingbu,
>
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 03:47:54PM +0800, Bingbu Cao wrote:
>> Sakari and Stanislaw,
>>
>> On 11/1/24 3:46 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote:
>>>>>> @@ -386,10 +382,8 @@ irqreturn_t ipu6_buttress_isr(int irq, void *isp_ptr)
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (irq_status & BUTTRESS_ISR_IPC_FROM_ISH_IS_WAITING) {
>>>>>> - dev_dbg(&isp->pdev->dev,
>>>>>> - "BUTTRESS_ISR_IPC_FROM_ISH_IS_WAITING\n");
>>>>>> - ipu6_buttress_ipc_recv(isp, &b->ish, &b->ish.recv_data);
>>>>>> - complete(&b->ish.recv_complete);
>>>>>> + dev_warn(&isp->pdev->dev,
>>>>>> + "BUTTRESS_ISR_IPC_FROM_ISH_IS_WAITING\n");
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this is a unrelated change, right?
>>>>
>>>> I mean the change from dev_dbg() to dev_warn().
>>>
>>> We're not handling these interrupts anymore in any way.
>>>
>>> I wonder if the ipu6_buttress_ipc_recv() call should still remain in place,
>>> even if we really do nothing with these. It looks like some kind of an
>>> acknowledgement mechanism.
>>
>> I just confirm that IPC_FROM_ISH_IS_WAITING and IPC_EXEC_DONE_BY_ISH are
>> not valid anymore from IPU6, I think the handling here and below could be
>> removed.
>
> Do you know which IPU version still needed it?
>
> There are folks who'd like to add IPU4 support to the driver but they can
> add it back if it's needed.
>
I know that ISH IPC was added from IPU4, but I am not sure IPU4 really
need that now.
--
Best regards,
Bingbu Cao
