Re: [PATCH] soc: imx: imx93-blk-ctrl: set priority level

[Marco Felsch]

Hi Peng,

On 22-07-25, Peng Fan wrote:
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: imx: imx93-blk-ctrl: set priority level
> > 
> > On 22-07-25, Peng Fan wrote:
> > > Hi Marco,
> > >
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: imx: imx93-blk-ctrl: set priority level
> > > >
> > > > Hi Peng,
> > > >
> > > > thanks for the patch.
> > > >
> > > > On 22-07-25, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> > > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > i.MX93 mediamix blk ctrl has registers to set QoS(priority) value.
> > > > > It support default QoS value and cfg QoS value. Set an initial
> > > > > value from i.MX design team. If LCDIF/ISI/PXP wanna a different
> > > > > QoS value in future, they could use interconnect to request bandwidth.
> > > >
> > > > I need to ask here. Does the iMX93 use the same interconnect as the
> > > > iMX8M* does?
> > >
> > > No. i.MX93 use different interconnect, it has different design, the
> > > QoS priority register are distributed in blk ctrl.
> > 
> > Did just the interface change e.g. how you configure the interconnect or is it
> > a complete new interconnect?
> 
> It is different interconnect IP. The QoS(priority) register is not in a central
> place, they are spread in the mix blk ctrl register space, most blk ctrl
> has QoS. By configure the register in BLK CTRL, the QoS value will flow
> into the interconnect IP.
> 
> But compared with i.MX8M, it is simpler.

Okay, I got both points. Just to be clear (and sorry for my persistency
here) it is not just a different IP interface for the NOC?

So to be on the same page with you: On the i.MX93 we now have the
BLKCTRL settting the interconnect priority and a interconnect setting
for advanced traffic shaping like bandwidth reservation?

Regards,
  Marco