Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] media: chips-media: wave5: Improve performance of decoder

[Brandon Brnich <b-brnich@ti.com>]

Hi Nicolas and Jackson,

On 9/24/2025 8:20 AM, Nicolas Dufresne wrote:
> Hi Jackson,
> 
> Le mercredi 24 septembre 2025 à 01:14 +0000, jackson.lee a écrit :
>> Hi Nicolas
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Nicolas Dufresne <nicolas.dufresne@collabora.com>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2025 3:00 AM
>>> To: Brandon Brnich <b-brnich@ti.com>; jackson.lee
>>> <jackson.lee@chipsnmedia.com>; mchehab@kernel.org; hverkuil-
>>> cisco@xs4all.nl; bob.beckett@collabora.com
>>> Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; lafley.kim
>>> <lafley.kim@chipsnmedia.com>; hverkuil@xs4all.nl; Nas Chung
>>> <nas.chung@chipsnmedia.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] media: chips-media: wave5: Improve performance
>>> of decoder
>>>
>>> Hi Brandon,
>>>
>>> Le lundi 22 septembre 2025 à 12:32 -0500, Brandon Brnich a écrit :
>>>>> -	/*
>>>>> -	 * During a resolution change and while draining, the firmware
>>>>> may
>>>>> flush
>>>>> -	 * the reorder queue regardless of having a matching decoding
>>>>> operation
>>>>> -	 * pending. Only terminate the job if there are no more IRQ
>>>>> coming.
>>>>> -	 */
>>>>> -	wave5_vpu_dec_give_command(inst, DEC_GET_QUEUE_STATUS,
>>>>> &q_status);
>>>>> -	if (q_status.report_queue_count == 0 &&
>>>>> -	    (q_status.instance_queue_count == 0 ||
>>>>> dec_info.sequence_changed)) {
>>>>> -		dev_dbg(inst->dev->dev, "%s: finishing job.\n",
>>>>> __func__);
>>>>> -		pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(inst->dev->dev);
>>>>
>>>> Patch is failing to apply here to linux-next because these redundant
>>>> calls have already been removed[0].
>>>
>>> Which have not been merged back from the RC into media-committers/next,
>>> forcing to skip a cycle. Jackson, feel free to rebase on linux-next like
>>> Brandon suggest.
>>
>> Then should I make v6 patch series based on Linux-next ?
> 
> I've asked advises from the other maintainers, and the answer is no. Basing it
> on our next branch for linux-media submission is the correct thing to do. Its
> too late for this cycle, but be reassured we will improve our process in future
> iterations to reduce the risk of this happening.
> 
> Feel free to send a rebased patch to Brandon, having more testing is always
> good.

Sorry for the confusion here, I was unaware that the patches weren't 
present in -next on linux-media tree. Typically I just do all my testing 
on the linux-next branch. I will make sure to use linux-media in the future.

No need to share the patch with me, I already rebased it to build and 
start my own testing.

Thanks,
Brandon

> 
> cheers,
> Nicolas
> 
>>
>> Thanks
>> Jackson
>>
>>>
>>> regards,
>>
>>> Nicolas