[PATCH v2 3/5] media: mediatek: vcodec: Read HW active status from clock

AngeloGioacchino Del Regno angelogioacchino.delregno at collabora.com
Thu Jun 15 00:30:56 PDT 2023


Il 15/06/23 02:40, Stephen Boyd ha scritto:
> Quoting AngeloGioacchino Del Regno (2023-06-14 01:13:43)
>> Il 12/06/23 21:19, Stephen Boyd ha scritto:
>>> Quoting AngeloGioacchino Del Regno (2023-06-09 00:42:13)
>>>> Il 09/06/23 01:56, Stephen Boyd ha scritto:
>>>>> Quoting AngeloGioacchino Del Regno (2023-06-08 02:01:58)
>>>>>> Il 08/06/23 10:12, Chen-Yu Tsai ha scritto:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 4:57 AM Nícolas F. R. A. Prado
>>>>>>> <nfraprado at collabora.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The firmware gives an indication of "boot done", but that's for the "core" part
>>>> of the vcodec... then it manages this clock internally to enable/disable the
>>>> "compute" IP of the decoder.
>>>>
>>>> As far as I know (and I've been researching about this) the firmware will not
>>>> give any "decoder powered, clocked - ready to get data" indication, and the
>>>> only way that we have to judge whether it is in this specific state or not is
>>>> to check if the "VDEC_ACTIVE" clock got enabled by the firmware.
>>>
>>> Is Linux ever going to use clk consumer APIs like clk_enable/clk_disable
>>> on this VDEC_ACTIVE clk? If the answer is no, then there isn't any
>>> reason to put it in the clk framework, and probably syscon is the way to
>>> go for now.
>>>
>>
>> Not for the current platform, but that may change in future SoCs... we're not sure.
> 
> If you're not using the clk consumer APIs then it shouldn't be a clk.
> 
>>
>>> Another approach could be to wait for some amount of time after telling
>>> firmware to power up and assume the hardware is active.
>>>
>>
>> That would be highly error prone though. Expecting that the HW is alive means that
>> we're 100% sure that both firmware and driver are doing the right thing at every
>> moment, which is something that we'd like to assume but, realistically, for safety
>> reasons we just don't.
>>
>> Should we anyway go for a syscon *now* and then change it to a clock later, if any
>> new platform needs this as a clock?
> 
> Yeah. Or implement this as a power domain and have it read the register
> directly waiting to return from the power_on()?

A power domain would force us to incorrectly describe the hardware in the bindings
though, I think... so, Nícolas, please, let's go for a syscon at this point, as it
really looks like being the only viable option.

Stephen, many thanks for the valuable suggestions and the nice conversation.

Cheers!
Angelo



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list