Hi Ezequiel,
On Fri, 2019-11-15 at 12:44 -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> Hello Philipp,
>
> Thanks for reviewing.
>
> On Thu, 2019-11-14 at 10:48 +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote:
[...]
> > Why isn't PP enabled in prepare_run? Does this mean the first frame is
> > not post-processed?
> >
>
> No, because hantro_finish_run is called (despite its name)
> before the decoding operation is actually triggered.
>
> I guess this hantro_finish_run name adds some confusion:
> prepare_run and finish_run should be something along
> start_prepare_run, end_prepare_run.
Ah, ok then. I was confused because I just came from looking at coda-vpu
code, where finish_run is a callback called after the device has
finished processing. Maybe I should rename that as well.
> And also, perhaps disabling the post-processor in prepare_run
> works just fine. I need to check that.
Ok.
[...]
> > > +#define HANTRO_PP_REG_WRITE_S(vpu, reg_name, val) \
> > > + do { \
> > > + if ((vpu)->variant->postproc_regs->(reg_name).base) \
> > > + hantro_reg_write((vpu), \
> > > + &(vpu)->variant->postproc_regs->(reg_name), \
> > > + (val)); \
> > > + } while (0)
> >
> > Why all these checks, are any of the register fields optional?
> >
>
> That was the plan. Perhaps now it makes less sense,
> but maybe it's safer this way, if it's extended?
>
> OTOH, we might want to make sure the driver fails (or warns).
I think that would be better than silently ignoring them.
Although I don't quite see the point in repeatedly checking the presence
of mandatory register fields at runtime.
regards
Philipp
_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
