[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b6a89ccc-45da-a4eb-df69-29e80dbe3655@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 17:00:33 +0530
From: Dikshita Agarwal <dikshita.agarwal@....qualcomm.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
Vikash Garodia <vikash.garodia@....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 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.
>
> I do not find it acceptable approach to harass community reviewers that
> way. Even if you do it internally, not on the lists.
>
> I think this review timeline is final argument for Vikash to stop
> pushing such narratives and complains, because your review is expected
> to be BEFORE the maintainer upper in the upstream flow.
Since these changes were posted by Vikash, who is a co‑maintainer of this
driver, I initially waited for reviews from other community members before
adding my own tags. We did receive review comments on most of the patches,
and I intentionally held back my Reviewed-by tags to allow space for
broader feedback.
Now that the series has been on the mailing list for about a month without
any remaining open comments, I have gone ahead and reviewed the patches,
Since The changes look good to me and are ready for this merge cycle.
Thanks,
Dikshita
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists