[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56211603-de02-4b8f-a7c6-a4d80ace4e2f@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 00:31:05 +0300
From: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@...aro.org>
To: Depeng Shao <quic_depengs@...cinc.com>, rfoss@...nel.org,
todor.too@...il.com, bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org, mchehab@...nel.org,
robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...cinc.com, Yongsheng Li <quic_yon@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/13] media: qcom: camss: Add support for VFE hardware
version Titan 780
Hi Depeng.
On 8/15/24 18:43, Depeng Shao wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the confirmation, even though I add the rup_update and
>>> buf_done function in later commits, it is still called in platform
>>> specific code(camss-vfe-780.c), so I will keep as it is done today.
>>
>> let it be so.
>>
>> I have another ask about it, please move new camss_reg_update() out from
>> camss.c into camss-csid.c, and camss_buf_done() from camss.c into camss-
>> vfe.c
>>
>
> The cross direct call has been removed by below commit, so it looks
> strange if I add the cross direct call.
>
> media: qcom: camss: Decouple VFE from CSID
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240522154659.510-9-quic_grosikop@quicinc.com/
This I don't understand, please elaborate. I don't ask for a "cross direct
call", but you do introduce a CSID specific function in the generic camss.c
and another VFE specific function in the same camss.c
What I ask is just move the current versions of camss_buf_done() and
camss_reg_update() out from camss.c to the files, which are related to the
sub-IP blocks, and of course move the function declarations from camss.h
into camss-vfe.h and camss-csid.h respectively.
If possible there shall be no CSID or VFE specific specific code in camss.c,
and that fact is that it's possible.
> I use the v4l2_subdev_notify to do the cross communication in v1 and v2
> series, but Bryan said, "The subdev notify is I think not the right fit
> for this purpose within our driver.".
As far as I see all of that is irrelevant.
> Then I add an internal notify interface in camss structure, but Bryan
> suggested to use direct call, so I add these functions directly in camss.c
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/236cfe43-8321-4168-8630-fb9528f581bd@linaro.org/
>
--
Best wishes,
Vladimir
Powered by blists - more mailing lists