Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753694AbbK0MVc (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Nov 2015 07:21:32 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41]:37619 "EHLO mail-wm0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750788AbbK0MV3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Nov 2015 07:21:29 -0500 Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC/PATCH 3/8] media: platform: mtk-vpu: Support Mediatek VPU To: andrew-ct chen References: <1447764885-23100-1-git-send-email-tiffany.lin@mediatek.com> <1447764885-23100-4-git-send-email-tiffany.lin@mediatek.com> <5655DDB4.2080002@linaro.org> <1448626209.7734.26.camel@mtksdaap41> Cc: Tiffany Lin , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Matthias Brugger , Daniel Kurtz , Sascha Hauer , Hongzhou Yang , Hans Verkuil , Laurent Pinchart , Sakari Ailus , Geert Uytterhoeven , Mikhail Ulyanov , Fabien Dessenne , Arnd Bergmann , Darren Etheridge , Peter Griffin , Benoit Parrot , Eddie Huang , Yingjoe Chen , James Liao , Daniel Hsiao , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org From: Daniel Thompson Message-ID: <56584AC5.7020704@linaro.org> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:21:25 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1448626209.7734.26.camel@mtksdaap41> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1662 Lines: 44 On 27/11/15 12:10, andrew-ct chen wrote: >>> + >>> > >+ memcpy((void *)send_obj->share_buf, buf, len); >>> > >+ send_obj->len = len; >>> > >+ send_obj->id = id; >>> > >+ vpu_cfg_writel(vpu, 0x1, HOST_TO_VPU); >>> > >+ >>> > >+ /* Wait until VPU receives the command */ >>> > >+ timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(IPI_TIMEOUT_MS); >>> > >+ do { >>> > >+ if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) { >>> > >+ dev_err(vpu->dev, "vpu_ipi_send: IPI timeout!\n"); >>> > >+ return -EIO; >>> > >+ } >>> > >+ } while (vpu_cfg_readl(vpu, HOST_TO_VPU)); >> > >> >Do we need to busy wait every time we communicate with the co-processor? >> >Couldn't we put this wait*before* we write to HOST_TO_VPU above. >> > >> >That way we only spin when there is a need to. >> > > Since the hardware VPU only allows that one client sends the command to > it each time. > We need the wait to make sure VPU accepted the command and cleared the > interrupt and then the next command would be served. I understand that the VPU can only have on message outstanding at once. I just wonder why we busy wait *after* sending the first command rather than *before* sending the second one. Streamed decode/encode typically ends up being rate controlled by capture or display meaning that in these cases we don't need to busy wait at all (because by the time we send the next frame the VPU has already accepted the previous message). Daniel. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/