Re: [PATCH 02/18] media: venus: Introduce VPU version distinction

[Konrad Dybcio]

On 30.03.2023 13:02, Vikash Garodia wrote:
> On 3/2/2023 5:07 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>
>> On 2.03.2023 08:12, Dikshita Agarwal wrote:
>>> On 2/28/2023 8:54 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>> The Video Processing Unit hardware version is the differentiator,
>>>> based on which we should decide which code paths to take in hw
>>>> init. Up until now, we've relied on HFI versions, but that was
>>>> just a happy accident between recent SoCs. Add a field in the
>>>> res struct and add correlated definitions that will be used to
>>>> account for the aforementioned differences.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/core.h | 15 +++++++++++++++
>>>>    1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/core.h b/drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/core.h
>>>> index 32551c2602a9..4b785205c5b1 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/core.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/core.h
>>>> @@ -48,6 +48,14 @@ struct bw_tbl {
>>>>        u32 peak_10bit;
>>>>    };
>>>>    +enum vpu_version {
>>>> +    VPU_VERSION_AR50, /* VPU4 */
>>>> +    VPU_VERSION_AR50_LITE, /* VPU4.4 */
>>>> +    VPU_VERSION_IRIS1, /* VPU5 */
> 
> There was Venus3X, followed by a different generation of video hardware. Driver just extended the versions for next generation incrementally.
> 
> Existing versions in driver are not the VPU versions, so we can drop them from comments.
Ack!

> 
>>>> +    VPU_VERSION_IRIS2,
>>>> +    VPU_VERSION_IRIS2_1,
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>>    struct venus_resources {
>>>>        u64 dma_mask;
>>>>        const struct freq_tbl *freq_tbl;
>>>> @@ -71,6 +79,7 @@ struct venus_resources {
>>>>        const char * const resets[VIDC_RESETS_NUM_MAX];
>>>>        unsigned int resets_num;
>>>>        enum hfi_version hfi_version;
>>>> +    enum vpu_version vpu_version;
>>>>        u8 num_vpp_pipes;
>>>>        u32 max_load;
>>>>        unsigned int vmem_id;
>>>> @@ -473,6 +482,12 @@ struct venus_inst {
>>>>    #define IS_V4(core)    ((core)->res->hfi_version == HFI_VERSION_4XX)
>>>>    #define IS_V6(core)    ((core)->res->hfi_version == HFI_VERSION_6XX)
>>>>    +#define IS_AR50(core)        ((core)->res->vpu_version == VPU_VERSION_AR50)
>>>> +#define IS_AR50_LITE(core)    ((core)->res->vpu_version == VPU_VERSION_AR50_LITE)
>>>> +#define IS_IRIS1(core)        ((core)->res->vpu_version == VPU_VERSION_IRIS1)
>>>> +#define IS_IRIS2(core)        ((core)->res->vpu_version == VPU_VERSION_IRIS2)
>>>> +#define IS_IRIS2_1(core)    ((core)->res->vpu_version == VPU_VERSION_IRIS2_1)
>>>> +
>>>>    #define ctrl_to_inst(ctrl)    \
>>>>        container_of((ctrl)->handler, struct venus_inst, ctrl_handler)
>>>>    
>>> Adding VPU version check seems a good idea to me. Can we remove HFI Version checks now?
>> If all implementations using VPU x.y *always* use the
>> same HFI generation for given x, y, we could.
> 
> HFIs generally does not change, so we can be sure that they would always use the same HFI.
> 
> We might add a new interface (HFI) for a feature requirement, but always support the existing ones.
Okay, will do. Thanks!

Konrad
> 
>>
>> That said, I think keeping it as-is would be convenient
>> from the maintainability standpoint if nothing else.. For
>> example functions that only appear in ancient msm-3.10
>> releases can be easily guarded with IS_V1 or what have you
>> without having to dig up all n VPU revisions.
>>
>> Konrad