All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@google.com>
To: mtk12024 <Yunfei.Dong@mediatek.com>
Cc: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@chromium.org>,
	Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl>,
	Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@chromium.org>,
	Tiffany Lin <tiffany.lin@mediatek.com>,
	Andrew-CT Chen <andrew-ct.chen@mediatek.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	Tomasz Figa <tfiga@google.com>,
	Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@chromium.org>,
	Fritz Koenig <frkoenig@chromium.org>,
	Irui Wang <irui.wang@mediatek.com>,
	linux-media@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	srv_heupstream@mediatek.com, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
	Project_Global_Chrome_Upstream_Group@mediatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1, 07/14] media: mtk-vcodec: Add msg queue feature for lat and core architecture
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 16:55:16 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+Px+wUK=4iAk+OG1wCFHMdi5+japOngCEoY9g9bSbNNLKca2Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1626074875.7221.15.camel@mhfsdcap03>

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 3:28 PM mtk12024 <yunfei.dong@mediatek.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-07-09 at 17:39 +0800, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 2:22 PM Yunfei Dong <yunfei.dong@mediatek.com> wrote:
> > Doesn't it need to call mtk_vcodec_mem_free() and kfree() for any failure paths?
> When allocate memory fail, will call deinit function auto, then free all allocated memory.
I guess you mean: if vdec_msg_queue_init() fails,
vdec_msg_queue_deinit() should be called?

If so:
- It is not "auto".  It depends on callers to invoke _deinit() if _init() fails.
- The API usage would be a bit weird: if the object hasn't been
initialized, shall we de-initialize it?

> > > +struct vdec_lat_buf *vdec_msg_queue_get_core_buf(
> > > +       struct mtk_vcodec_dev *dev)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct vdec_lat_buf *buf;
> > > +       int ret;
> > > +
> > > +       spin_lock(&dev->core_lock);
> > > +       if (list_empty(&dev->core_queue)) {
> > > +               mtk_v4l2_debug(3, "core queue is NULL, num_core = %d", dev->num_core);
> > > +               spin_unlock(&dev->core_lock);
> > > +               ret = wait_event_freezable(dev->core_read,
> > > +                       !list_empty(&dev->core_queue));
> > > +               if (ret)
> > > +                       return NULL;
> > Should be !ret?
> According the definidtion, when condition is true, return value is 0.
Yeah, you're right.  I was confused a bit with wait_event_timeout().

> > > +bool vdec_msg_queue_wait_lat_buf_full(struct vdec_msg_queue *msg_queue)
> > > +{
> > > +       long timeout_jiff;
> > > +       int ret, i;
> > > +
> > > +       for (i = 0; i < NUM_BUFFER_COUNT + 2; i++) {
> > > +              timeout_jiff = msecs_to_jiffies(1000);
> > > +              ret = wait_event_timeout(msg_queue->lat_read,
> > > +                    msg_queue->num_lat == NUM_BUFFER_COUNT, timeout_jiff);
> > > +              if (ret) {
> > > +                     mtk_v4l2_debug(3, "success to get lat buf: %d",
> > > +                            msg_queue->num_lat);
> > > +                     return true;
> > > +              }
> > > +       }
> > Why does it need the loop?  i is unused.
> Core maybe decode timeout, need to wait all core buffer process
> completely.
The point is: the i is unused.  If it needs more time to complete,
could it just wait for (NUM_BUFFER_COUNT + 2) * 1000 msecs?

> > > +       msg_queue->init_done = false;
> > Have no idea what init_done does in the code.  It is not included in
> > any branch condition.
> When call vdec_msg_queue_init will set this parameter to true.
The point is: if init_done doesn't change any code branch but just a
flag, does it really need the flag?

For example usages:
- If see the msg_queue->init_done has already been set to true in
vdec_msg_queue_init(), return errors.
- If see the msg_queue->init_done has already been set to false in
vdec_msg_queue_deinit(), return errors.

In the cases, I believe it brings very limited benefit (i.e. the
msg_queue is likely to _init and _deinit only once).

> > > +/**
> > > + * vdec_msg_queue_get_core_buf - get used core buffer for lat decode.
> > > + * @dev: mtk vcodec device
> > > + */
> > > +struct vdec_lat_buf *vdec_msg_queue_get_core_buf(
> > > +       struct mtk_vcodec_dev *dev);
> > This is weird: vdec_msg_queue's operator but manipulating mtk_vcodec_dev?
> vdec_msg_queue is used to share message between lat and core, for each
> instance has its lat msg queue list, but all instance share one core msg
> queue list. When try to get core buffer need to get it from core queue
> list. Then queue it to lat queue list when core decode done.
I guess you mean: during runtime, it has n lat queues and 1 core queue.

If so, would it be intuitive and simple by:

msg_queue *core_q;
msg_queue *lat_q[LAT_N];

vdec_msg_queue_dequeue(core_q) if it wants to get from core queue.
vdec_msg_queue_enqueue(lat_q[X], data) if it wants to put data to lat queue X.

> > > +/**
> > > + * vdec_msg_queue_buf_to_lat - queue buf to lat for lat decode.
> > > + * @buf: current lat buffer
> > > + */
> > > +void vdec_msg_queue_buf_to_lat(struct vdec_lat_buf *buf);
> > It should at least accept a struct vdec_msg_queue argument (or which
> > msg queue should the buf put into?).
> All buffer is struct vdec_lat_buf, used to share info between lat and core queue list.
The API semantic needs to provide a way to specify which msg_queue the
buf would put into.

> > The position of struct vdec_msg_queue is weird.  It looks like the msg
> > queue is only for struct vdec_lat_buf.  If so, would vdec_msg_queue be
> > better to call vdec_lat_queue or something similar?
> >
> > It shouldn't touch the core queue in mtk_vcodec_dev anyway.  Is it
> > possible to generalize the queue-related code for both lat and core
> > queues?
> Lat queue list is separately for each instance, but only has one core
> queue list.
Suggested to generalize the vdec_msg_queue to handle both lat and core
(and maybe furthermore).  See comment above.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@google.com>
To: mtk12024 <Yunfei.Dong@mediatek.com>
Cc: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@chromium.org>,
	Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl>,
	 Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@chromium.org>,
	Tiffany Lin <tiffany.lin@mediatek.com>,
	 Andrew-CT Chen <andrew-ct.chen@mediatek.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
	 Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	 Tomasz Figa <tfiga@google.com>,
	Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@chromium.org>,
	 Fritz Koenig <frkoenig@chromium.org>,
	Irui Wang <irui.wang@mediatek.com>,
	 linux-media@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	 srv_heupstream@mediatek.com, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
	 Project_Global_Chrome_Upstream_Group@mediatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1, 07/14] media: mtk-vcodec: Add msg queue feature for lat and core architecture
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 16:55:16 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+Px+wUK=4iAk+OG1wCFHMdi5+japOngCEoY9g9bSbNNLKca2Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1626074875.7221.15.camel@mhfsdcap03>

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 3:28 PM mtk12024 <yunfei.dong@mediatek.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-07-09 at 17:39 +0800, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 2:22 PM Yunfei Dong <yunfei.dong@mediatek.com> wrote:
> > Doesn't it need to call mtk_vcodec_mem_free() and kfree() for any failure paths?
> When allocate memory fail, will call deinit function auto, then free all allocated memory.
I guess you mean: if vdec_msg_queue_init() fails,
vdec_msg_queue_deinit() should be called?

If so:
- It is not "auto".  It depends on callers to invoke _deinit() if _init() fails.
- The API usage would be a bit weird: if the object hasn't been
initialized, shall we de-initialize it?

> > > +struct vdec_lat_buf *vdec_msg_queue_get_core_buf(
> > > +       struct mtk_vcodec_dev *dev)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct vdec_lat_buf *buf;
> > > +       int ret;
> > > +
> > > +       spin_lock(&dev->core_lock);
> > > +       if (list_empty(&dev->core_queue)) {
> > > +               mtk_v4l2_debug(3, "core queue is NULL, num_core = %d", dev->num_core);
> > > +               spin_unlock(&dev->core_lock);
> > > +               ret = wait_event_freezable(dev->core_read,
> > > +                       !list_empty(&dev->core_queue));
> > > +               if (ret)
> > > +                       return NULL;
> > Should be !ret?
> According the definidtion, when condition is true, return value is 0.
Yeah, you're right.  I was confused a bit with wait_event_timeout().

> > > +bool vdec_msg_queue_wait_lat_buf_full(struct vdec_msg_queue *msg_queue)
> > > +{
> > > +       long timeout_jiff;
> > > +       int ret, i;
> > > +
> > > +       for (i = 0; i < NUM_BUFFER_COUNT + 2; i++) {
> > > +              timeout_jiff = msecs_to_jiffies(1000);
> > > +              ret = wait_event_timeout(msg_queue->lat_read,
> > > +                    msg_queue->num_lat == NUM_BUFFER_COUNT, timeout_jiff);
> > > +              if (ret) {
> > > +                     mtk_v4l2_debug(3, "success to get lat buf: %d",
> > > +                            msg_queue->num_lat);
> > > +                     return true;
> > > +              }
> > > +       }
> > Why does it need the loop?  i is unused.
> Core maybe decode timeout, need to wait all core buffer process
> completely.
The point is: the i is unused.  If it needs more time to complete,
could it just wait for (NUM_BUFFER_COUNT + 2) * 1000 msecs?

> > > +       msg_queue->init_done = false;
> > Have no idea what init_done does in the code.  It is not included in
> > any branch condition.
> When call vdec_msg_queue_init will set this parameter to true.
The point is: if init_done doesn't change any code branch but just a
flag, does it really need the flag?

For example usages:
- If see the msg_queue->init_done has already been set to true in
vdec_msg_queue_init(), return errors.
- If see the msg_queue->init_done has already been set to false in
vdec_msg_queue_deinit(), return errors.

In the cases, I believe it brings very limited benefit (i.e. the
msg_queue is likely to _init and _deinit only once).

> > > +/**
> > > + * vdec_msg_queue_get_core_buf - get used core buffer for lat decode.
> > > + * @dev: mtk vcodec device
> > > + */
> > > +struct vdec_lat_buf *vdec_msg_queue_get_core_buf(
> > > +       struct mtk_vcodec_dev *dev);
> > This is weird: vdec_msg_queue's operator but manipulating mtk_vcodec_dev?
> vdec_msg_queue is used to share message between lat and core, for each
> instance has its lat msg queue list, but all instance share one core msg
> queue list. When try to get core buffer need to get it from core queue
> list. Then queue it to lat queue list when core decode done.
I guess you mean: during runtime, it has n lat queues and 1 core queue.

If so, would it be intuitive and simple by:

msg_queue *core_q;
msg_queue *lat_q[LAT_N];

vdec_msg_queue_dequeue(core_q) if it wants to get from core queue.
vdec_msg_queue_enqueue(lat_q[X], data) if it wants to put data to lat queue X.

> > > +/**
> > > + * vdec_msg_queue_buf_to_lat - queue buf to lat for lat decode.
> > > + * @buf: current lat buffer
> > > + */
> > > +void vdec_msg_queue_buf_to_lat(struct vdec_lat_buf *buf);
> > It should at least accept a struct vdec_msg_queue argument (or which
> > msg queue should the buf put into?).
> All buffer is struct vdec_lat_buf, used to share info between lat and core queue list.
The API semantic needs to provide a way to specify which msg_queue the
buf would put into.

> > The position of struct vdec_msg_queue is weird.  It looks like the msg
> > queue is only for struct vdec_lat_buf.  If so, would vdec_msg_queue be
> > better to call vdec_lat_queue or something similar?
> >
> > It shouldn't touch the core queue in mtk_vcodec_dev anyway.  Is it
> > possible to generalize the queue-related code for both lat and core
> > queues?
> Lat queue list is separately for each instance, but only has one core
> queue list.
Suggested to generalize the vdec_msg_queue to handle both lat and core
(and maybe furthermore).  See comment above.

_______________________________________________
Linux-mediatek mailing list
Linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@google.com>
To: mtk12024 <Yunfei.Dong@mediatek.com>
Cc: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@chromium.org>,
	Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl>,
	 Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@chromium.org>,
	Tiffany Lin <tiffany.lin@mediatek.com>,
	 Andrew-CT Chen <andrew-ct.chen@mediatek.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
	 Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	 Tomasz Figa <tfiga@google.com>,
	Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@chromium.org>,
	 Fritz Koenig <frkoenig@chromium.org>,
	Irui Wang <irui.wang@mediatek.com>,
	 linux-media@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	 srv_heupstream@mediatek.com, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
	 Project_Global_Chrome_Upstream_Group@mediatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1, 07/14] media: mtk-vcodec: Add msg queue feature for lat and core architecture
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 16:55:16 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+Px+wUK=4iAk+OG1wCFHMdi5+japOngCEoY9g9bSbNNLKca2Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1626074875.7221.15.camel@mhfsdcap03>

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 3:28 PM mtk12024 <yunfei.dong@mediatek.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-07-09 at 17:39 +0800, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 2:22 PM Yunfei Dong <yunfei.dong@mediatek.com> wrote:
> > Doesn't it need to call mtk_vcodec_mem_free() and kfree() for any failure paths?
> When allocate memory fail, will call deinit function auto, then free all allocated memory.
I guess you mean: if vdec_msg_queue_init() fails,
vdec_msg_queue_deinit() should be called?

If so:
- It is not "auto".  It depends on callers to invoke _deinit() if _init() fails.
- The API usage would be a bit weird: if the object hasn't been
initialized, shall we de-initialize it?

> > > +struct vdec_lat_buf *vdec_msg_queue_get_core_buf(
> > > +       struct mtk_vcodec_dev *dev)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct vdec_lat_buf *buf;
> > > +       int ret;
> > > +
> > > +       spin_lock(&dev->core_lock);
> > > +       if (list_empty(&dev->core_queue)) {
> > > +               mtk_v4l2_debug(3, "core queue is NULL, num_core = %d", dev->num_core);
> > > +               spin_unlock(&dev->core_lock);
> > > +               ret = wait_event_freezable(dev->core_read,
> > > +                       !list_empty(&dev->core_queue));
> > > +               if (ret)
> > > +                       return NULL;
> > Should be !ret?
> According the definidtion, when condition is true, return value is 0.
Yeah, you're right.  I was confused a bit with wait_event_timeout().

> > > +bool vdec_msg_queue_wait_lat_buf_full(struct vdec_msg_queue *msg_queue)
> > > +{
> > > +       long timeout_jiff;
> > > +       int ret, i;
> > > +
> > > +       for (i = 0; i < NUM_BUFFER_COUNT + 2; i++) {
> > > +              timeout_jiff = msecs_to_jiffies(1000);
> > > +              ret = wait_event_timeout(msg_queue->lat_read,
> > > +                    msg_queue->num_lat == NUM_BUFFER_COUNT, timeout_jiff);
> > > +              if (ret) {
> > > +                     mtk_v4l2_debug(3, "success to get lat buf: %d",
> > > +                            msg_queue->num_lat);
> > > +                     return true;
> > > +              }
> > > +       }
> > Why does it need the loop?  i is unused.
> Core maybe decode timeout, need to wait all core buffer process
> completely.
The point is: the i is unused.  If it needs more time to complete,
could it just wait for (NUM_BUFFER_COUNT + 2) * 1000 msecs?

> > > +       msg_queue->init_done = false;
> > Have no idea what init_done does in the code.  It is not included in
> > any branch condition.
> When call vdec_msg_queue_init will set this parameter to true.
The point is: if init_done doesn't change any code branch but just a
flag, does it really need the flag?

For example usages:
- If see the msg_queue->init_done has already been set to true in
vdec_msg_queue_init(), return errors.
- If see the msg_queue->init_done has already been set to false in
vdec_msg_queue_deinit(), return errors.

In the cases, I believe it brings very limited benefit (i.e. the
msg_queue is likely to _init and _deinit only once).

> > > +/**
> > > + * vdec_msg_queue_get_core_buf - get used core buffer for lat decode.
> > > + * @dev: mtk vcodec device
> > > + */
> > > +struct vdec_lat_buf *vdec_msg_queue_get_core_buf(
> > > +       struct mtk_vcodec_dev *dev);
> > This is weird: vdec_msg_queue's operator but manipulating mtk_vcodec_dev?
> vdec_msg_queue is used to share message between lat and core, for each
> instance has its lat msg queue list, but all instance share one core msg
> queue list. When try to get core buffer need to get it from core queue
> list. Then queue it to lat queue list when core decode done.
I guess you mean: during runtime, it has n lat queues and 1 core queue.

If so, would it be intuitive and simple by:

msg_queue *core_q;
msg_queue *lat_q[LAT_N];

vdec_msg_queue_dequeue(core_q) if it wants to get from core queue.
vdec_msg_queue_enqueue(lat_q[X], data) if it wants to put data to lat queue X.

> > > +/**
> > > + * vdec_msg_queue_buf_to_lat - queue buf to lat for lat decode.
> > > + * @buf: current lat buffer
> > > + */
> > > +void vdec_msg_queue_buf_to_lat(struct vdec_lat_buf *buf);
> > It should at least accept a struct vdec_msg_queue argument (or which
> > msg queue should the buf put into?).
> All buffer is struct vdec_lat_buf, used to share info between lat and core queue list.
The API semantic needs to provide a way to specify which msg_queue the
buf would put into.

> > The position of struct vdec_msg_queue is weird.  It looks like the msg
> > queue is only for struct vdec_lat_buf.  If so, would vdec_msg_queue be
> > better to call vdec_lat_queue or something similar?
> >
> > It shouldn't touch the core queue in mtk_vcodec_dev anyway.  Is it
> > possible to generalize the queue-related code for both lat and core
> > queues?
> Lat queue list is separately for each instance, but only has one core
> queue list.
Suggested to generalize the vdec_msg_queue to handle both lat and core
(and maybe furthermore).  See comment above.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2021-07-13  8:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 72+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-07  6:21 [PATCH v1, 00/14] Using component framework to support multi hardware decode Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21 ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21 ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21 ` [PATCH v1, 01/14] media: mtk-vcodec: Get numbers of register bases from DT Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21 ` [PATCH v1, 02/14] media: mtk-vcodec: Refactor vcodec pm interface Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21 ` [PATCH v1, 03/14] media: mtk-vcodec: Use component framework to manage each hardware information Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-08 10:04   ` Tzung-Bi Shih
2021-07-08 10:04     ` Tzung-Bi Shih
2021-07-08 10:04     ` Tzung-Bi Shih
2021-07-07  6:21 ` [PATCH v1, 04/14] dt-bindings: media: mtk-vcodec: Separate video encoder and decoder dt-bindings Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-08 10:04   ` Tzung-Bi Shih
2021-07-08 10:04     ` Tzung-Bi Shih
2021-07-08 10:04     ` Tzung-Bi Shih
2021-07-14 23:13     ` Rob Herring
2021-07-14 23:13       ` Rob Herring
2021-07-14 23:13       ` Rob Herring
2021-07-07  6:21 ` [PATCH v1, 05/14] media: mtk-vcodec: Use pure single core for MT8183 Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21 ` [PATCH v1, 06/14] media: mtk-vcodec: Add irq interface for core hardware Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-09  7:59   ` Tzung-Bi Shih
2021-07-09  7:59     ` Tzung-Bi Shih
2021-07-09  7:59     ` Tzung-Bi Shih
2021-07-12  8:07     ` mtk12024
2021-07-12  8:07       ` mtk12024
2021-07-12  8:07       ` mtk12024
2021-07-07  6:21 ` [PATCH v1, 07/14] media: mtk-vcodec: Add msg queue feature for lat and core architecture Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-09  9:39   ` Tzung-Bi Shih
2021-07-09  9:39     ` Tzung-Bi Shih
2021-07-09  9:39     ` Tzung-Bi Shih
2021-07-12  7:27     ` mtk12024
2021-07-12  7:27       ` mtk12024
2021-07-12  7:27       ` mtk12024
2021-07-13  8:55       ` Tzung-Bi Shih [this message]
2021-07-13  8:55         ` Tzung-Bi Shih
2021-07-13  8:55         ` Tzung-Bi Shih
2021-07-07  6:21 ` [PATCH v1, 08/14] media: mtk-vcodec: Generalize power and clock on/off interfaces Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21 ` [PATCH v1, 09/14] media: mtk-vcodec: Add new interface to lock different hardware Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21 ` [PATCH v1, 10/14] media: mtk-vcodec: Add core thread Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21 ` [PATCH v1, 11/14] media: mtk-vcodec: Support 34bits dma address for vdec Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21 ` [PATCH v1, 12/14] dt-bindings: media: mtk-vcodec: Adds decoder dt-bindings for mt8192 Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-14 23:14   ` Rob Herring
2021-07-14 23:14     ` Rob Herring
2021-07-14 23:14     ` Rob Herring
2021-07-07  6:21 ` [PATCH v1, 13/14] media: mtk-vcodec: Add core dec and dec end ipi msg Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21 ` [PATCH v1, 14/14] media: mtk-vcodec: Use codec type to separate different hardware Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong
2021-07-07  6:21   ` Yunfei Dong

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CA+Px+wUK=4iAk+OG1wCFHMdi5+japOngCEoY9g9bSbNNLKca2Q@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=tzungbi@google.com \
    --cc=Project_Global_Chrome_Upstream_Group@mediatek.com \
    --cc=Yunfei.Dong@mediatek.com \
    --cc=acourbot@chromium.org \
    --cc=andrew-ct.chen@mediatek.com \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=frkoenig@chromium.org \
    --cc=hsinyi@chromium.org \
    --cc=hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl \
    --cc=irui.wang@mediatek.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=matthias.bgg@gmail.com \
    --cc=mchehab@kernel.org \
    --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=srv_heupstream@mediatek.com \
    --cc=tfiga@google.com \
    --cc=tiffany.lin@mediatek.com \
    --cc=tzungbi@chromium.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.