Re: [PATCH 1/6] media: dt-bindings: Document SC8280XP/SM8350 Venus

[Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org>]

On 09/08/2023 13:15, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> Hmm.
>>
>> Well from earlier in the thread the question "why do we have these compat strings" is because we can have any combination of encoder/decoder assigned.
>>
>> If there's a cogent argument_still_  to be made to transition to some new way of assignment then fine so long as we don't break that basic flexibility.
>>
>> Though my own €0.02 is that a module parameter is more of a PITA than a compat string.
>>
>> OTOH I could make the argument, that the high probability is most people - probably all, just instantiate a single encoder and decoder and aren't aware of or using the inbuilt flexibility.
>>
>> @stan probably has the right idea what to do.
> Actually..
> 
> Has anybody tested this, ever, with the mainline driver?

I assume Stan has.

> Do we have anyone using this?
Can't say.

> Is anybody willing to maintain that, test for regressions and
> fix them in a reasonable amount of time?
> 
> 
> If we don't have at least 2x "yes" here, I don't think it makes sense
> to worry about it..

Hmm.

We decide if we are encoding or decoding when we init a session and the 
blocks are symmetrical. The hw blocks themselves are not bound to a 
particular encode/decode mode.

Having two parallel encoders or decoders is exactly the same effort as 
having a parallel encoder/decoder.

We don't test parallel encoding/decoding but we should. I'd not be 
surprised to find there are bugs but, that's not a reason to exclude 
rather to find and fix bugs.

---
bod