Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Venus stateful Codec API
To:     Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@chromium.org>
Cc:     Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        Vikash Garodia <vgarodia@codeaurora.org>,
        Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org>,
        Malathi Gottam <mgottam@codeaurora.org>
References: <20190117162008.25217-1-stanimir.varbanov@linaro.org>
 <CAPBb6MVOPmRhhM=J-RqLOpc+mDbnxYdCMO3mqQfgN-F3b=kBCw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.varbanov@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <10deb3d1-2b10-43fe-bc77-4465f561c90a@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 24 Jan 2019 12:12:56 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPBb6MVOPmRhhM=J-RqLOpc+mDbnxYdCMO3mqQfgN-F3b=kBCw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Alex,

Thank you for review and valuable comments!

On 1/24/19 10:43 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> Hi Stanimir,
> 
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 1:20 AM Stanimir Varbanov
> <stanimir.varbanov@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> This aims to make Venus decoder compliant with stateful Codec API [1].
>> The patches 1-9 are preparation for the cherry on the cake patch 10
>> which implements the decoder state machine similar to the one in the
>> stateful codec API documentation.
> 
> Thanks *a lot* for this series! I am still stress-testing it against
> the Chromium decoder tests, but so far it has been rock-solid. I have
> a few inline comments on some patches ; I will also want to review the
> state machine more thoroughly after refreshing my mind on Tomasz doc,
> but this looks pretty promising already.

I'm expecting problems with ResetAfterFirstConfigInfo. I don't know why
but this test case is very dirty. I'd appreciate any help to decipher
what is the sequence of v4l2 calls made by this unittest case.

-- 
regards,
Stan