Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 26 Jul 2022 10:17:31 +0200
From:   Marco Felsch <m.felsch@pengutronix.de>
To:     Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
Cc:     "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>,
        "shawnguo@kernel.org" <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
        "s.hauer@pengutronix.de" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
        "kernel@pengutronix.de" <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
        "festevam@gmail.com" <festevam@gmail.com>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: imx: imx93-blk-ctrl: set priority level
Message-ID: <20220726081731.laulutjo4h4tizpx@pengutronix.de>
References: <20220725035931.3988435-1-peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>
 <20220725085050.izj7kmgeuxxug6rh@pengutronix.de>
 <DU0PR04MB9417BBDAE35E932F7601F94788959@DU0PR04MB9417.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <20220725093056.ywr7zo37e4rbrvei@pengutronix.de>
 <DU0PR04MB9417E452C99EA1C4662A06DA88959@DU0PR04MB9417.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DU0PR04MB9417E452C99EA1C4662A06DA88959@DU0PR04MB9417.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Precedence: bulk

Hi Peng,

On 22-07-25, Peng Fan wrote:
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: imx: imx93-blk-ctrl: set priority level
> > 
> > On 22-07-25, Peng Fan wrote:
> > > Hi Marco,
> > >
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: imx: imx93-blk-ctrl: set priority level
> > > >
> > > > Hi Peng,
> > > >
> > > > thanks for the patch.
> > > >
> > > > On 22-07-25, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> > > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > i.MX93 mediamix blk ctrl has registers to set QoS(priority) value.
> > > > > It support default QoS value and cfg QoS value. Set an initial
> > > > > value from i.MX design team. If LCDIF/ISI/PXP wanna a different
> > > > > QoS value in future, they could use interconnect to request bandwidth.
> > > >
> > > > I need to ask here. Does the iMX93 use the same interconnect as the
> > > > iMX8M* does?
> > >
> > > No. i.MX93 use different interconnect, it has different design, the
> > > QoS priority register are distributed in blk ctrl.
> > 
> > Did just the interface change e.g. how you configure the interconnect or is it
> > a complete new interconnect?
> 
> It is different interconnect IP. The QoS(priority) register is not in a central
> place, they are spread in the mix blk ctrl register space, most blk ctrl
> has QoS. By configure the register in BLK CTRL, the QoS value will flow
> into the interconnect IP.
> 
> But compared with i.MX8M, it is simpler.

Okay, I got both points. Just to be clear (and sorry for my persistency
here) it is not just a different IP interface for the NOC?

So to be on the same page with you: On the i.MX93 we now have the
BLKCTRL settting the interconnect priority and a interconnect setting
for advanced traffic shaping like bandwidth reservation?

Regards,
  Marco