On 11/4/24 5:19 PM, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 05:07:25PM +0800, Bingbu Cao wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Ok, I think on v3, I'll remove handling of BUTTRESS_ISR_IPC_FROM_ISH_IS_WAITING
> and BUTTRESS_ISR_IPC_EXEC_DONE_BY_ISH from isr, but will keep the BIT's
> definitions just in case.
Thanks!
>
> Regards
> Stanislaw
>
--
Best regards,
Bingbu Cao
