lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 02/29] venus: hfi: preparation to support venus 4xx
Hi Stanimir,

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 5:14 PM Stanimir Varbanov <
stanimir.varbanov@linaro.org> wrote:

> This covers the differences between 1xx,3xx and 4xx.

> Signed-off-by: Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.varbanov@linaro.org>
> ---
> drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/core.h | 4 ++
> drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/helpers.c | 37 +++++++----
> drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/hfi_helper.h | 84
++++++++++++++++++++++--
> drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/hfi_venus_io.h | 24 +++++++
> drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/vdec.c | 5 +-
> drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/venc.c | 5 +-
> 6 files changed, 137 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

Please see my comments inline.

[snip]

> @@ -257,12 +273,11 @@ static int load_scale_clocks(struct venus_core
*core)

> set_freq:

> - if (core->res->hfi_version == HFI_VERSION_3XX) {
> - ret = clk_set_rate(clk, freq);
> + ret = clk_set_rate(clk, freq);
> +
> + if (IS_V3(core) || IS_V4(core)) {
> ret |= clk_set_rate(core->core0_clk, freq);
> ret |= clk_set_rate(core->core1_clk, freq);
> - } else {
> - ret = clk_set_rate(clk, freq);
> }

nit: The clock API defines NULL clock as a special no-op value and so
clk_set_rate(NULL, ...) would return 0 instantly. Maybe it would just make
sense to have core0_clk and core1_clk set to NULL for V1 and remove the
condition here?

> if (ret) {
> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/hfi_helper.h
b/drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/hfi_helper.h
> index 55d8eb21403a..1bc5aab1ce6b 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/hfi_helper.h
> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/hfi_helper.h
> @@ -121,6 +121,7 @@
> #define HFI_EXTRADATA_METADATA_FILLER 0x7fe00002

> #define HFI_INDEX_EXTRADATA_INPUT_CROP 0x0700000e
> +#define HFI_INDEX_EXTRADATA_OUTPUT_CROP 0x0700000f

nit: Would it make sense to suffix this _4XX, so that reader could know
that it was introduced in this version? Similarly for other newly added
definitions.

> #define HFI_INDEX_EXTRADATA_DIGITAL_ZOOM 0x07000010
> #define HFI_INDEX_EXTRADATA_ASPECT_RATIO 0x7f100003

> @@ -376,13 +377,18 @@
> #define HFI_BUFFER_OUTPUT2 0x3
> #define HFI_BUFFER_INTERNAL_PERSIST 0x4
> #define HFI_BUFFER_INTERNAL_PERSIST_1 0x5
> -#define HFI_BUFFER_INTERNAL_SCRATCH 0x1000001
> -#define HFI_BUFFER_EXTRADATA_INPUT 0x1000002
> -#define HFI_BUFFER_EXTRADATA_OUTPUT 0x1000003
> -#define HFI_BUFFER_EXTRADATA_OUTPUT2 0x1000004
> -#define HFI_BUFFER_INTERNAL_SCRATCH_1 0x1000005
> -#define HFI_BUFFER_INTERNAL_SCRATCH_2 0x1000006
> -
> +#define HFI_BUFFER_INTERNAL_SCRATCH(ver) \
> + (((ver) == HFI_VERSION_4XX) ? 0x6 : 0x1000001)
> +#define HFI_BUFFER_INTERNAL_SCRATCH_1(ver) \
> + (((ver) == HFI_VERSION_4XX) ? 0x7 : 0x1000005)
> +#define HFI_BUFFER_INTERNAL_SCRATCH_2(ver) \
> + (((ver) == HFI_VERSION_4XX) ? 0x8 : 0x1000006)
> +#define HFI_BUFFER_EXTRADATA_INPUT(ver) \
> + (((ver) == HFI_VERSION_4XX) ? 0xc : 0x1000002)
> +#define HFI_BUFFER_EXTRADATA_OUTPUT(ver) \
> + (((ver) == HFI_VERSION_4XX) ? 0xa : 0x1000003)
> +#define HFI_BUFFER_EXTRADATA_OUTPUT2(ver) \
> + (((ver) == HFI_VERSION_4XX) ? 0xb : 0x1000004)

nit: Does it make sense to add an argument, rather than simply defining
separate HFI_BUFFER_INTERNAL_SCRATCH_1XX and
HFI_BUFFER_INTERNAL_SCRATCH_4XX? In my subjective opinion, the argument
just makes it harder to read, as it's not clear how it is used inside the
macro from reading just the call to it. Also it would get messy when adding
further variants in future.

[snip]

> +/* HFI 4XX reorder the fields, use these macros */
> +#define HFI_BUFREQ_HOLD_COUNT(bufreq, ver) \
> + ((ver) == HFI_VERSION_4XX ? 0 : (bufreq)->hold_count)
> +#define HFI_BUFREQ_COUNT_MIN(bufreq, ver) \
> + ((ver) == HFI_VERSION_4XX ? (bufreq)->hold_count :
(bufreq)->count_min)
> +#define HFI_BUFREQ_COUNT_MIN_HOST(bufreq, ver) \
> + ((ver) == HFI_VERSION_4XX ? (bufreq)->count_min : 0)
> +

Hmm, this is a bit messy. The macro is supposed to return count_min, but it
returns hold_count. Shouldn't we define a separate
hfi_buffer_requirements_4xx struct for 4XX?

Even though this seems to simplify the code eventually, I think it might be
quite confusing for anyone working with the driver in the future.

Also HFI_BUFREQ_HOLD_COUNT and HFI_BUFREQ_COUNT_MIN_HOST don't seem to be
used anywhere.

[snip]

> +/* vcodec noc error log registers */
> +#define VCODEC_CORE0_VIDEO_NOC_BASE_OFFS 0x4000
> +#define VCODEC_CORE1_VIDEO_NOC_BASE_OFFS 0xc000
> +#define VCODEC_COREX_VIDEO_NOC_ERR_SWID_LOW_OFFS 0x500
> +#define VCODEC_COREX_VIDEO_NOC_ERR_SWID_HIGH_OFFS 0x504
> +#define VCODEC_COREX_VIDEO_NOC_ERR_MAINCTL_LOW_OFFS 0x508
> +#define VCODEC_COREX_VIDEO_NOC_ERR_ERRVLD_LOW_OFFS 0x510
> +#define VCODEC_COREX_VIDEO_NOC_ERR_ERRCLR_LOW_OFFS 0x518
> +#define VCODEC_COREX_VIDEO_NOC_ERR_ERRLOG0_LOW_OFFS 0x520
> +#define VCODEC_COREX_VIDEO_NOC_ERR_ERRLOG0_HIGH_OFFS 0x524
> +#define VCODEC_COREX_VIDEO_NOC_ERR_ERRLOG1_LOW_OFFS 0x528
> +#define VCODEC_COREX_VIDEO_NOC_ERR_ERRLOG1_HIGH_OFFS 0x52c
> +#define VCODEC_COREX_VIDEO_NOC_ERR_ERRLOG2_LOW_OFFS 0x530
> +#define VCODEC_COREX_VIDEO_NOC_ERR_ERRLOG2_HIGH_OFFS 0x534
> +#define VCODEC_COREX_VIDEO_NOC_ERR_ERRLOG3_LOW_OFFS 0x538
> +#define VCODEC_COREX_VIDEO_NOC_ERR_ERRLOG3_HIGH_OFFS 0x53c

What are these offsets from?

nit: Other registers seem to be defined as (xxx_BASE + offset). Is there
any reason to define these in another way?

> +
> #endif
> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/vdec.c
b/drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/vdec.c
> index 49bbd1861d3a..261a51adeef2 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/vdec.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/vdec.c
> @@ -689,6 +689,7 @@ static int vdec_queue_setup(struct vb2_queue *q,

> static int vdec_verify_conf(struct venus_inst *inst)
> {
> + enum hfi_version ver = inst->core->res->hfi_version;
> struct hfi_buffer_requirements bufreq;
> int ret;

> @@ -700,14 +701,14 @@ static int vdec_verify_conf(struct venus_inst *inst)
> return ret;

> if (inst->num_output_bufs < bufreq.count_actual ||
> - inst->num_output_bufs < bufreq.count_min)
> + inst->num_output_bufs < HFI_BUFREQ_COUNT_MIN(&bufreq, ver))
> return -EINVAL;

> ret = venus_helper_get_bufreq(inst, HFI_BUFFER_INPUT, &bufreq);
> if (ret)
> return ret;

> - if (inst->num_input_bufs < bufreq.count_min)
> + if (inst->num_input_bufs < HFI_BUFREQ_COUNT_MIN(&bufreq, ver))
> return -EINVAL;

Back to the point I raised above, maybe we could make
venus_helper_get_bufreq() untangle the order of fields for 4XX? It seems to
do a memcpy anyway, so doing it field by field for such small struct
shouldn't really matter.

Best regards,
Tomasz

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-18 11:48    [W:0.338 / U:3.384 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site