[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cc7104b7-87ba-442f-9582-e3fe0c725c22@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 12:54:20 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Vikash Garodia <vikash.garodia@....qualcomm.com>,
Dikshita Agarwal <dikshita.agarwal@....qualcomm.com>,
Bryan O'Donoghue <bod@...nel.org>
Cc: Abhinav Kumar <abhinav.kumar@...ux.dev>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Vishnu Reddy <busanna.reddy@....qualcomm.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] media: iris: Introduce vpu ops for vpu4 with
necessary hooks
On 16/01/2026 12:27, Vikash Garodia wrote:
>
> On 1/16/2026 4:16 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 16/01/2026 10:51, Dikshita Agarwal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/10/2025 6:06 PM, Vikash Garodia wrote:
>>>> Add power sequence for vpu4 by reusing from previous generation wherever
>>>> possible. Hook up vpu4 op with vpu4 specific implemtation or resue from
>>>> earlier generation wherever feasible, like clock calculation in this
>>>> case.
>>>>
>>>> Co-developed-by: Vishnu Reddy <busanna.reddy@....qualcomm.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Vishnu Reddy <busanna.reddy@....qualcomm.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Vikash Garodia <vikash.garodia@....qualcomm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/Makefile | 1 +
>>>> .../platform/qcom/iris/iris_platform_common.h | 7 +
>>>> drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_vpu4x.c | 369 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_vpu_common.h | 1 +
>>>> 4 files changed, 378 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Dikshita Agarwal <dikshita.agarwal@....qualcomm.com>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for reviewing this code. I would like to point that it took
>> one month for Qualcomm to review this Qualcomm patch and in the same
>> time Vikash is sending emails (more than one!) that Bryan does not
>> review that fast as expected.
>
> Firstly, the ask to Bryan have been to pull patches (not stressed on
> review part), infact, even fixes are waiting for merge window while they
> can easily go into RCs. This part of the process need some improvement.
Lack of timeline reviews is the process needing improvement.
Please read feature-and-driver-maintainers.rst document to understand
the expectations of you.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists