On 12/05/2026 08:05, Erikas Bitovtas wrote:
On 5/6/26 2:33 AM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
On 05/05/2026 22:44, Erikas Bitovtas wrote:
+ .vcodec_clks = { "core0", "core1" },
+ .vcodec_clks_num = 2,
This smells a bit dodgy to me.
You already have
struct clk *vcodec0_clks[VIDC_VCODEC_CLKS_NUM_MAX];
struct clk *vcodec1_clks[VIDC_VCODEC_CLKS_NUM_MAX];
so why add vcodec_clks and put core0 and core1 into a new array.
vcodec0_clks and vcodec1_clks seem like a very natural place for core0
and core1 clocks to live ?
Sashiko found some power management issues in my code, so I'm coming
back to this.
The idea is to call vcodec_clks_get only once for inline cores, thus
avoiding duplicate clock assignment. Attaching to vcodec{0,1}_clks
instead would mean we're adding the same clocks twice. I dropped it in
later revisions, but now I want to re-introduce this, then add them in
core_get_v1 instead of {vdec,venc}_get_v1.> ---
bod
That's fine just please give as much detail as possible in the commit
log to justify.
---
bod
