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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190117162008.25217-1-stanimir.varbanov@linaro.org>
 <CAPBb6MVOPmRhhM=J-RqLOpc+mDbnxYdCMO3mqQfgN-F3b=kBCw@mail.gmail.com> <10deb3d1-2b10-43fe-bc77-4465f561c90a@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <10deb3d1-2b10-43fe-bc77-4465f561c90a@linaro.org>
From:   Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@chromium.org>
Date:   Fri, 25 Jan 2019 14:34:31 +0900
Message-ID: <CAPBb6MUqi3xhgE_WPRP_7gZWcH2WGz8A7vskGGJW9zGM0=D1Sw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Venus stateful Codec API
To:     Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.varbanov@linaro.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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 7:13 PM Stanimir Varbanov
<stanimir.varbanov@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

I did not see any issue with ResetAfterFirstConfigInfo, however
ResourceExhaustion seems to hang once in a while. But I could already
see this behavior with the older patchset.

In any case I plan to thoroughly review the state machine. I agree it
is a bit complex to grasp.