[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2622656e-9abd-4407-b1fa-228da9959d60@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 12:06:28 +0100
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
To: Dikshita Agarwal <dikshita.agarwal@....qualcomm.com>,
Vikash Garodia <vikash.garodia@....qualcomm.com>,
Bryan O'Donoghue <bod@...nel.org>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab
<mchehab@...nel.org>,
Viswanath Boma <quic_vboma@...cinc.com>,
Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.k.varbanov@...il.com>
Cc: Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Renjiang Han <renjiang.han@....qualcomm.com>,
Mecid Urganci <mecid@...omediagroup.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: venus: vdec: restrict EOS addr quirk to IRIS2 only
On 11/24/25 11:58 AM, Dikshita Agarwal wrote:
> On SM8250 (IRIS2) with firmware older than 1.0.087, the firmware could
> not handle a dummy device address for EOS buffers, so a NULL device
> address is sent instead. The existing check used IS_V6() alongside a
> firmware version gate:
>
> if (IS_V6(core) && is_fw_rev_or_older(core, 1, 0, 87))
> fdata.device_addr = 0;
> else
> fdata.device_addr = 0xdeadb000;
>
> However, SC7280 which is also V6, uses a firmware string of the form
> "1.0.<commit-hash>", which the version parser translates to 1.0.0. This
> unintentionally satisfies the `is_fw_rev_or_older(..., 1, 0, 87)`
> condition on SC7280. Combined with IS_V6() matching there as well, the
> quirk is incorrectly applied to SC7280, causing VP9 decode failures.
>
> Constrain the check to IRIS2 (SM8250) only, which is the only platform
> that needed this quirk, by replacing IS_V6() with IS_IRIS2(). This
> restores correct behavior on SC7280 (no forced NULL EOS buffer address).
This really needs an inline comment, since you provided a long backstory
explaining how fragile this check is
> Fixes: 47f867cb1b63 ("media: venus: fix EOS handling in decoder stop command")
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Reported-by: Mecid <notifications@...hub.com>
This is certainly not a correct email to use... it will at best bounce
or get ignored and at worst cause some unintended interactions with gh if
you have an account registered with the email you're sending from
I opened that person's GH profile and grabbed the git identify of a recent
commit made attributed to this account:
Mecid Urganci <mecid@...omediagroup.de>
(+CC Mecid, -CC github, fwiw)
Konrad
Powered by blists - more mailing lists