On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 at 23:04, Irui Wang (王瑞) [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi,Ezequiel,

Thanks for your reviewing.

On Tue, 2021-08-24 at 08:02 -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:

quoted

Hi Irui,

On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 at 08:00, Irui Wang [off-list ref]
wrote:

quoted

Enable MT8195 two H.264 venc cores, updates vcodec binding
document.

Signed-off-by: Irui Wang <redacted>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/mediatek-vcodec.txt | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/mediatek-

vcodec.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/mediatek-
vcodec.txt
index de961699ba0a..eb2e24c32426 100644

--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/mediatek-vcodec.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/mediatek-vcodec.txt

@@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ Required properties:
   "mediatek,mt8173-vcodec-dec" for MT8173 decoder.
   "mediatek,mt8192-vcodec-enc" for MT8192 encoder.
   "mediatek,mt8195-vcodec-enc" for MT8195 encoder.
+  "mediatek,mtk-venc-core0" for MT8195 avc core0 device.
+  "mediatek,mtk-venc-core1" for MT8195 avc core1 device.

What is the difference between core0 and core1?

Thanks,
Ezequiel

Both core0 and core1 are H264 encoder hardware, they have their own
hardware register base, used power-domains/clocks/irqs. We can use any
of them for H.264 encoding, but the two cores can work together for
higher performance, it's called "frame racing", a hardware encoding
mode, control flow just like in the commit messages:

core0 frame#0.frame#2.frame#4...
core1    frame#1.frame#3.frame#5...

If they are two encoder cores, why do you need different compatible strings?

It would be interesting to see a device tree which shows how this should
be used in the real world, but from the looks of it, it seems you don't
need a separate compatible.

It seems this series is somewhat related to Yunfei's "[PATCH v5,
00/15] Using component framework to support multi hardware decode",
but I don't see a device tree patch either in that series.

Given this is a complex architecture, I don't know if it
makes sense to discuss decoder and encoder independently.

If you guys unify the two series, and add the device tree patches for it,
or at least for the most complex cases, maybe that will surface the
architecture more clearly and come up with an easier solution that
doesn't involve
an async framework to pull in the parts together.

Thanks,
Ezequiel